Looks like another uptick in the UAH data. That’s probably a disappointment for those who expected the US experience of some rather cold, but not unusual winter weather in February, to be a sign that there’s no global Warming.

I am seriously surprised that you Guys do not understand that what the Satellites are measuring is the Warmth escaping the Earth via the Atmosphere and bears little relationship to what is happening on the Surface.
It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere losses to space.
Even if the surface is covered in Ice the higher albedo will put the Solar energy back in to the Atmosphere with little surface warming.

I like to Look at the data because it takes all the averaging out of it, which hides many features. If you look at the UAH satellite temperatures, it appears that before the El Nio in the early .
90s, the temperature was stable around -.15 anomaly. Then after the late 90s
La Nia was over, it was again stable before the El Nio in the mid- teens, oscillating around a midpoint about +0.1 anomaly. If the mid teens La Nia is over, it looks like it may be settling in at +0.3 anomaly. Its way too early to say whether we are post La Nia and where it will settle.

Has anyone ever looked to see whether El Nios could cause a step change in global Temp? I cant propose a mechanism, but that is really what the data seems to indicate.

If you look at all the data at once statistically, you hide this kind of internal feature. If you just did a simple regression before 1995 another from 2001-2015, Ill bet you find a statistically different average. It is yet to be seen what happens post 2018..

The increased solar radiation has caused the ocean warming, and that huge thermal mass is transferring heat from the oceans to the atmosphere. CO2 is basically along for the ride as an effect, not a cause.

Cold air flows into the large Fraser drainage and moves southwest.
Then that cold air comes roaring out of the Fraser, turns south, and meets the moist air in Puget Sound. Communities there get all tangled up in snow.

I think we need a wall, and folks from B.C. should pay for it.
Actually, we are east of the Cascades. Arctic air has to get into the State, then goes down into the Columbia River Valley. We are west of the River, so cold air has to fill that area first and then come back up to over 2,200 feet (670 m). To accomplish this takes a whole lot of cold air, but it happens.
Models indicate that on or about March 9th, cold will show signs of fading.

Jon…”Models indicate that on or about March 9th, cold will show signs of fading”.

I am grateful. I worked night shift in -25C weather near Edmonton and folks up there would regard our cold spell as a cheery warming. Some would call it a chinook.

No need for a wall, we Canadians get treated far more harshly than Mexicans if we sneak in and work illegally. That’s because we won’t work for nothing. Personally, I have never felt the urge to sneak into the US.

ps. I’ll bet NOAA has no thermometers in the Cascades. They’ll all be located by the oceans, where it’s some 15 degrees warmer.

And what’s with you guys having a tornado near Seattle? That’s bizarre.

No one expects it to disappear. In fact, a lot of people view a warming (or cooling) world to be just another example of “natural variation”. Too bad we can’t get any climate model coders to study natural variation.

Are you quite mad? You link to computer modelling papers in general. That is about as stupid as linking to GCMs and pretending they are worthwhile.

Luckily, not everyone is as gullible as you.

Aircraft designers use tried and tested modelling based on measurement and reality. After all that, the aircraft undergoes testing using experienced test pilots. So much for betting your life on a computer model, without verifying the results.

From MODTRAN –

” . . . radiance accuracy is approximately 2%.” Using a theoretical standard atmosphere, of course. At least you get to pick one of six standard atmospheres – none of which are accurate.

Carry on believing. Maybe you could find just one testable GHE hypothesis, rather than thousands of pointless computer modelling exercises.

Bart
The difference between the Maunder minimum and the peak at the end of the last century is about 1.2 W/m^2 (averaged over the 11 year cycle). So if 2 W/m^2 is not much, then neither was the drop in activity of the Maunder minimum.

Some of you may have noticed, Australia is a big place, even bigger than Texas ( hard to believe I know).

For the record ( the last few months have brought a lot of new ones in Oz) , Hobart has just had its hottest March day on record of 39.1 C easily eclipsing the old record of 37.3 C.

Along with all the other ecological shifts southwards the human population is joing them but even Tasmania maybe only be a temporary refuge. Next stop south is Macquarie Island. I hear real-estate is still very cheap there.

Yes Darwin, is very pleasant in the winter. Enjoyed many a beautiful sunset at Mindil beach.

The six months summer humidity is a bit brutal though unless you like that kind of thing. Despite this the maximum temperature is constrained by the absence of the blisteringly hot winds in summer from central Australia that causes the extremes in the other capitals. I guess you can blame the summer monsoon for that. As they say it’s an ill wind ….

I also haven’t heard of too many internally displaced climate refugees heading north. If there are refugee caravans on the way north then the rabbit proof in central Australia could be upgraded. Maybe our government could declare a national emergency and invoke the US Australia NZ treaty (ANZUS) and get Trump to help fund the upgrade. Hopefully Trump hasn’t already withdrawn and joined the Warsaw Pact.

However Tassie seems to be the preferred direction for refugees and unfortunately Hobart real estate prices now appear to be getting out of hand. Even down here in the cooler parts of the mainland we are now experiencing net migration from the north. As they say about Queensland, “beautiful one day too effn hot the next”.

So Mike, enjoy the heat and humidity. There seems to be plenty of it coming your way. Looking at the BOM forecast for Darwin, you guys might have an outside chance of breaking the March maximum later in the week. Imagine that the two extremities of the vast continent breaking the March record! Could be a message in that.

Ahhh!
That Macquarie Island, remote, nearly unpopulated, no industry, no Urban Heat Island, no adjustments ….
That Automatic Weather Station run by our BOM, where the trend of temperature over the last 50 years is Z E R O
For both Tmax and Tmin. (But manages to show Global Warming according to GISS.)
Geoff

There have been various possible explanations for the none-warming trend in Antarctica. The one that seems most convincing to me is that although Antarctica gets the CO2 increase experienced in the rest of the world, its temperatures are less affected by other causes of warming . . . such as UHI, soot deposits, changes in relative humidity, land development, agricultural practices, and other human intervention such as ice-breakers and introduction of plants. Again, other explanations have been advanced. Honest scientfic debate is possible.

–It will take many years before the Surface cooling shows up in the Atmosphere losses to space–
Nope.
Tropical heating would couple months delay in terms of global temp.

But generally, ocean temperatures control global temperature and cooling or colder land doesn’t. Particularly, when it only a small portion of land.

Though I would say, land cools Earth, and water warms Earth.
And land gets cold, due to lack of ocean warming or warmer land will result in more heat loss to space.
Plus any real warming is the entire volume of the ocean warming. And it appears that over last hundred years there probably some warming, and still could some warming in the future.
But what this is mostly about is weather and global warming is mostly about centuries of warming or cooling.

–A C Osborn says:
March 2, 2019 at 11:26 AM
Funny I thought the Surface included the Seas, silly me.
The heat being lost from the Land & Oceans is going through the Atmosphere and regesitering as if it is staying warm.–
The seas are small part of the surface.

A warmer land does not do much in terms warming the air.
One can have somewhat warm land with snow on it.
A few inches of land surface can warm daily and few inches of ground doesn’t hold much heat. Meters of depth can hold a fair amount of heat, but it’s insulated/isolated in regards to air above it.

Several inches of dirt holds far less heat than the atmosphere above
it. A square meter of dirt 20 cm deep is less than ton and the air above square meter is about 10 tons. And ground at surface tends to get a bit colder than air above at night.
A ton of water at same temperature has about 5 times as much heat as the ground. And square meter water 1 meter deep is a ton, and meters of depth of water is warmed daily.
Both water and ground warm and cool at depth seasonally, but water gains and loses more heat seasonally- and is losing to the atmosphere. Though both water and land radiate energy to space, and since land can become hotter, land can radiate more energy to space at the time it is hotter.
Wet land area puts more heat into the atmosphere as compared to dry land. And ocean warms atmosphere more than land.
It warms the atmosphere more, because 70% of surface is ocean and warms more because on average it’s warmer than land.
Average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C and average land is about 10 C.

As Mr Spencer pointed out last June, the satellite reading for Australia or the US has little bearing on the temperature “IN” that country. It was actually Australia’s 4th warmest February of the past century.

The satellite measurement is different measurement of AUS.
And I would say a superior way to measure the atmospheric temperature, though not a superior way to measure air temperature in a white box 5 feet above the ground. Though a superior way to measure average air temperature as compared to balloon measurement.

The soviet republic of Canada will not be very desirable as this global warming has made it very cold this winter. As for Russia, russian women I find desirable but expensive. The only desirable part of Russia is Crimea.

lieb…”The soviet republic of Canada will not be very desirable as this global warming has made it very cold this winter”.

I take exception to that snarky remark. ☺

I’ll have you know that me and my union brothers worked damned hard over a century IN A DEMOCRACY…through a bit of civil disobedience…through beatings by goons hired by your capitalist buddies…through deaths caused by the same…to establish our SOCIALISM.

Nothing in common with Russia, where the Bolsheviks stole Marxist doctrine and named it socialism. There is nothing in the works of Marx mentioned such an abomination as Stalinist communism. The Bolsheviks threw real socialists and communists in concentration camps.

The irony is that Marx hated the word socialism. He refused to call his dogma socialism and it’s just as well. Socialism is a workers movement that grew in democratic countries through people who had the guts to stand up and DEMAND to be treated fairly.

Here in Canada, we have universal Medicare, pensions, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, womens’ rights thanks to those pioneers. and the freedom to live pretty well any way we like, as long as we don’t get caught doing something illegal. ☺

I know of no socialist who begrudges any capitalist the right to make a decent profit as long as he/she behaves, pays his/her taxes, treats people fairly and with dignity, and try not to be ***holes.

In fact, I know of socialists who are pretty good capitalists. Socialists have nothing against making money or preventing others from doing the same. Any propaganda to the contrary is fake news put out by right-wing media.

Let’s face it, there’s plenty to go around and no reason for kids to grow up in poverty. The reason poverty exists is because dickheads hoard the wealth and they are allowed to do so.

The concept of freedom vs govt authoritarianism even in the USA (arguably the most free country on earth…) is of course (IMHO) relative. Depending on the issue (regulations stemming from concerns over climate change being just one), there are large portions of the population who think either we are too free or our freedoms have already been squashed…

IMO we are closer to a socialist society than a free one. Depending on how the next election goes, we could vastly increase our speed moving in that direction as there are multiple self-declared socialists on the scene…

It’s a bit unfair (IMO) to have a scale of authoritarian or not when there are clearly shades of grey in between…

Obama’s policies frankly sucked, for 8 long years of subpar growth, persistent unemployment, and counterproductive healthcare debacles. But, that is not the discussion we are having here. The question was in regards to governments founded on Marxist principles, and where they ineluctably lead.

When it comes to economic performance, Obama had good timing. By the time he took office the damage was done and the economy was due for a good rebound no matter how good/bad his initiatives.

During his first two years, he basically threw a couple of massive stimulus blank checks at the situation (always going to cause some ‘economic growth’) and spent most of his political capital working on agenda items (i.e. Obamacare) which had nothing to do with the economy short term.

During his first 2 y, Trump basically threw a massive (uneeded) stimulus blank check tax giveaway to corporations (always going to cause some economic growth) and spent most of his political capital working on agenda items (i.e. Wall and cozying up to dictators).

For sure when it comes to a president, one is likely to see the guy on ‘my side’ more positively than they should and the guy on the other side more negatively. When it comes to an economy a president is given either too much credit or too much blame depending on the viewpoint.

The same thing goes for the climate change debate. Ones own viewpoint is pretty much going to determine how they see a set of data or view a publication or blog. I think that people on the AGW side are too myopic when it comes to recent data and are fixated on a fairly steady small rise in temperatures that could very well be mostly natural. Is it even possible for one of the current climate ‘models’ to predict cooling (we know it happens naturally…). But, I have tried to listen to viewpoints from the other side… something to effect of it’s better to be safe than sorry (precautionary principle). I get that…

But, as I’ve posed to you in the past… it really doesn’t matter much unless one has a solution that is ‘global’ (i.e. how does one get China to reduce their CO2 by say 80-90%, etc). I just don’t find many people discussing these higher level questions. It generally gets bogged down in tit-for-tat name calling ostensibly about the data and/or ‘science.’

Nate – 4.7% is a LOT of misery, and that’s not even counting the people who had given up looking, people who are now back to work in Trump’s economy.

Svante – the mortgage meltdown was a ticking time bomb, placed by the Democrats, that everyone knew would explode eventually. Saying Obama was not responsible does not cut the mustard. He had 8 long years to overcome it and failed. It was one of the worst recoveries ever that from an event that should have rectified within a couple of years. He was the first President ever to never see 3% or greater growth. He managed that feat by taxing success, and regulating everything in sight.

Many causes of the financial crisis, but almost everyone agrees that the bipartisan effort to deregulate banks turned the dumpster fire of the housing bubble into a financial conflagration. One with lasting effects.

I am not an ideologue when it comes to govt, Im for doing things that worked and not repeating things that failed.

since the temperature is exactly the same as the last month there should be really no comments here as nothing new to say ,
except maybe the gap between the predictions and reality is a little bit bigger,

This puts to rest the notion of a global average, which is more sci-fi and statistic than science. We had one of the coldest temperatures on record across much of North America during February, yet some higher than average temps in the south Pacific have created an upward blip in the average.

Anthropogenic global warming is one of the worst pieces of propaganda ever foisted on the world. Utter rubbish.

These variations are nothing more than normal, everyday weather on top of a recovery from the Little Ice Age.

A.C….”Didnt you notice that the Northern Hemisphere is 0.46 degrees C Above Normal?
Dont you find that just a bit odd?”

Weather and ocean currents, not to mention the oceanic oscillations.

Besides, what does 0.46C above normal mean in a physical sense? I can tell you one thing, here in the banana belt around Vancouver, Canada, this has to be one of the coldest Februarys on record. And it hasn’t finished yet, it’s expected to carry on till around March 10th.

February in Europe was rather warm. As for the socialist achievements of the great country of Canada, I agree they are substantial. When are you going to abolish private property? I see you already started via real-estate taxes. Very smart. Noone caught on. What is the next step? We need to spread the revolution worldwide. We comm.. err.. socialists are so smart and stealthy. I tell you what next. We will “share” cars, and bicycles.

after warm comes cold et vice versa. luckily, the great country of Urope will spend many less euros on natural gas this winter, which means co2 emissions will drop. Everybody happy. Gas prices also drop. Very good. Very very good.

Gas pricing is a game. The price of oil is manipulated by the stock market. It has nothing to do with supply and demand, every so often they throw us a bone to make us forget how much they rip us off in the long run.

It is clear the quest for funding drives the AGW nonsense. No funding, no nonsense. It’s that simple. And it’s good to be reminded of “Climagegate”. We can’t forget that they got caught red-handed, and then investigated themselves to find “nothing”!

Also, the reference to President Eisenhower’s warning: “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

CO2….”If you havent seen hit video by Dr Spencer it is one of the best Ive seen:”

Yeah…I thought Roy’s presentation was powerful and to the point. Then again, I watched Roger Pielke Jr.’s testimony and he came across as an alarmist butt-kisser.

The Democrat querying him was offering him loaded and leading questions from the alarmist side and Pielke was going along like someone currying for favour.

There is something seriously wrong with the Democrats who are pushing climate change propaganda. They can’t talk about it intelligently without some emotional plea to the future of their children. Load of politically-correct idiots.

I have been a long follower and admirer of your work and think you are the most qualified to write an urgently needed paper or maybe a book with the following theme or title.

“Where, when and if global warming or climate change is occurring or may or may not occur”.

This paper or book should detail, with references, past and probable global warming (Tmin,Tmax and climate change) in every local area in the world. It would give detailed instructions for accessing existing data bases to verify for the readers satisfaction the changes in climate in their local area.

WHY THIS IS URGENTLY NEEDED:
1.Every day the news media reports something negative with the tag line “due to climate change”. Even cursory investigation shows there has been little or no change in that area.
2. All laymen I have met visualize global warming as causing hotter areas getting hotter in mid day. I have not met one person who knows that the record and forecast of warming show changes: “OCCUR MOSTLY TOWARD THE POLES, IN WINTER, AT NIGHT”. This is of course wonderful but is not well known. Even fewer know that extreme weather in most areas is improving not getting worse.

I would love the do this piece but I am old and not proficient in manipulating climate basses which is one your strength.

Atmospheric temps in the lower troposphere, necessarily follow ocean surface temps and not the reverse (heat always flows from hot to cold).

So warming oceans will of course lead to warmer air temps..

EM,s answer:

“Because something is forcing the Earth to radiate less energy than it receives.”

cannot be so. The Earth naturally develops systems to shed its energy in the most efficient way possible.. so that, over time, it will ALWAYS lose more energy than it receives

So lets consider some alternatives:

1. Meteor impact(s).
Im pretty sure we would have noticed impactor(s) of sufficient size to raise the ocean temp so we can probably safely rule this out

2. Waste heat from human activity being dumped into rivers lakes and oceans
While this is certainly not zero, i would be surprised if it was enough to significantly affect ocean temps. However it may make a significant impact on coastal water near large urban/industrial areas and perhaps near river estuaries that flow through highly populated areas…

3. Geothermal energy

The abyssal depths are only heated by geothermal energy (no sunlight penetrates to that depth). An increase in upwelling geothermal energy may be significant, but I don’t think we have enough observational data to determine if this is so.

4. increased a*b*so*r*p*t*i*o*n of solar radiation

IMO this is the mostly likely answer, but what causes that increase? Greater solar activity? less clouds? less ozone?… some combination of these and/or other things?

If I had to guess, I would probably suggest that increased UV a*b*s*o*r*p*t*i*o*n due to the grand solar maximum and thinning ozone layer are the most likely causes…

As the solar cycle has fallen since the 21st century began and the ozone layer has begun recovering, so too has the ocean temp stabilized. …

I believe I read somewhere that it is expected to take 100 years for ozone levels to recover to 1970’s values… thats a lot of extra UV being a*b*s*o*r*b*e*d by the oceans…..

Is one of these the culprit? Or some combination thereof? I couldn’t say… But I’m absolutely sure that a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer ocean surface…

[ this is a duplicate of a post from another thread, repeated here because it is important ]

Since 1980, scientists have been using satellites to monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region.

Why do scientists monitor the number of sandwiches in the Arctic region, you might ask? The answer is quite simple. What do you think polar bears eat, when they can’t hunt seals, because there is no sea ice.

The number of sandwiches grows and decays with the seasons. There are more sandwiches in winter/spring (while the polar bears are eating seals). And there are fewer sandwiches in summer/fall (when seals are not available).

But scientists are concerned, because over the decades, the number of sandwiches is following a decreasing trend.

The number of sandwiches is obviously getting smaller. Not every year, of course. It does so in fits and starts. But the long term pattern (the trend), is clear. Deny it, and you are a sandwich denier.

A bitter argument has broken out, between the 2 scientists who have been monitoring sandwich numbers.

Dr Anne Alarmist, insists that sandwich numbers are falling rapidly, and may fall to zero within 10 to 20 years.

But her rival, Dr A Skeptic, claims that Dr Anne Alarmist is talking “poppycock”. Dr A Skeptic agrees that there is a decreasing trend, but claims that sandwiches will continue to be available, for at least 100 to 200 years.

Each scientist has plotted a graph of sandwich numbers from 1980 to 2018.

I expected that anybody who is familiar with sea ice extent, would know that my “sandwich” data was really “sea ice extent” data.

I find the debate over sea ice extent a bit boring. That is why I changed it to “sandwiches”. Sandwiches are much more exciting.

I think that the PIOMAS graph that you link to, with zero on the Y-axis, is a reasonable graph.

I am not willing to predict how long it will be before there is an ice free summer minimum. I will leave the guessing to the people who are trying to cause panic. I will wait, and continue to look at the data.

I am not particularly worried about there being an ice free summer minimum. If it happens, then it happens. The world won’t disappear in a puff of smoke. The Earth has been ice free before.

Technically, the Earth is still in an “interglacial” period.

An interglacial period is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years, that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.

Polar bears survived the Eemian warm period. I see no reason why they won’t survive the current one.

Humans will survive the current warm period as well, as long as they don’t panic, and do something stupid.

Ah, yes, but a pseudoscientific climatological zealot would argue that at times that nothing is better than a sandwich, so that if offered a sandwich, a climate zealot will choose nothing, having been convinced that nothing is better than the sandwich.

Something like a reduced rate of cooling is really heating, Gavin Schmidt is a renowned climate scientist rather than an undistinguished mathematician, and Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate rather than not having won a Nobel Prize.

It’s all part of the new Climate Paradigm based on sandwiches (and the fact that sometimes nothing is better or more satisfying than a sandwich). Who could possibly deny it?

Good news, because my area benefits from the increased precipitation. More good news because it will hold global temperatures up for another year, or two. If a La Niño were to occur here, global would likely drop below 0C, effectively ending the AGW nonsense. So we get to enjoy the humor for another couple of years.

Dr Spencer, your temperature chart shows a great deal of volatility. The ΔW/M^2 per ΔCO2 is constant for a given range. Would you write a blog post showing how CO2 and W/M^2 increased by X, and temperatures increased or decreased by Y? Here is an example post addressing not the ΔCO2 but tying ΔW/M^2 to temperature. What you will find is that temperatures can increase and decrease with increases in W/M^2.

The Author of this blog, Dr. Peter Langdon Ward seems to have many of the same ideas as the skeptics.

I think the dude is a crackpot. He might be brilliant in his area of expertise but he seems clueless about what Feynman was saying and just making up goofy unsupportable physics.

Here is one example of crackpot physics. So many skeptics subscribe to this version of unsupported declarations.

The crackpot: ” If a photon has a certain energy (E), most scientists conclude that 20 photons have 20 times as much energy (20*E). While it may be correct to think of 20 photons as having 20 times the capacity for containing energy (E) as one photon does, the energy (E) of each photon and of the ensemble of photons always remains the same no matter how many photons with that energy you have, because thermal energy is not additive.”

No clue how he came up with that. I think maybe g.e.r.a.n and Dr. Ward are the same person. How could two different people come up with the same anti-science conclusion and make these unsupported declarations?

What you quoted seems reasonable. Ice can radiate photons at the rate of 300W/m2. It doesn’t matter how many of these photons you have, even infinite numbers, you still cannot use them to warm a single drop of water. Pseudoscientific climatological nutters obviously believe otherwise.

Temperatures do not add. W/m2 is totally meaningless, unless a temperature is involved, and a relevant emissivity.

Carry on believing in the miraculous (yet strangely non-demonstrable) heating powers of CO2. Have you found a testable GHE hypothesis yet? I didn’t think so.

Is it remotely possible that you two (who never contribute anything of value, and I mean “never” literally) can not torture my rational logical mind with your nonsense?

Neither of you has a lick of logical, or rational thought process. Mike Flynn you are a complete waste of time, a mindless robot that repeats the same things thousands of times and is incapable of understanding any responses. We have all told you hundreds of times what the GHE is. I am not sure you are an actual human, could be a program.

JDHuffman, all you ever do is tell people they are wrong and make stupid unscientific declarations that you learned from some stupid skeptic blog. You are about as useless as dirty toilet paper. Get a clue. No one really cares about your declarations or opinions. (with exception of your dear wife DREMT). Most know you to be a complete fraud that makes up stuff and can’t support anything and when asked to support anything you run away.

Case of point. You bring up Poynting Vectors proving fluxes don’t add. I have asked you for explanation of how that works. You have not done so to date. You are a fraud and phony and you like to troll.

Poor Norman responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations.

Nothing new.

Norman is the perfect “Poster Boy” for the AGW pseudoscience. He can’t process facts and logic; he has no background in physics; and he believes linking to things he doesn’t understand makes him look smart.

Can you post anything at all of value? Is it possible. I doubt it, you are a phony fraud that pretends to have studied heat transfer but you can’t grasp why a hot object CAN absorb IR from a colder body. It has to do with the number of surface molecules in excited states. The number is very small at room temperature.

Quit being such a phony jerk and produce some real and valid information. I think I can speak for most, they are very tired of your endless made up declarations and your phony arrogance pretending to be some real expert in physics.

There are people who post on this blog that have actually taken physics courses. YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM! Quit lying and being such a phony. It gets sickening to see.

I do not link to things to make me “look smart”. I link to support what I state, something you don’t do because you don’t know real science and fake your way through things.

You are the only one I know who brings up “Poynting Vectors” to appear smart. You are an arrogant fraud. Soon all will see how phony you are. The more you post the more people see what a fake you are.

He talked about his wife in a past post (over the Moon rotation nonsense). He is a total fraud on this blog but may treat his wife well. I had suspicions that J Halpless and DREMT are one and the same, his dear wife. They support everything he claims and neither know a lick of physics.

At least most are aware he is a lying phony that pretends to have studied actual physics.

Tim Folkerts is one that is the real deal. His posts are very informative and valuable. He does have lots of patience with the insulting arrogance of the two clowns on this blog. JDHuffman and Mike Flynn.

JDHuffman really does not know any physics. When you interact with him has he ever offered any proof at all his claims have merit? He never has with me. If you ask him for proof of a particular statement you get 20 nonsense posts of some insults, taunts and diversion. What a phony troll. I guess all blogs have them.

“No-Clue Norman” is back with more of his juvenile adoration of personalties.

He responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He makes up stuff to attack others. He has no science, only his perverted opinions and his pseudoscience. He hopes that if he type out his opinions often enough, maybe they will come true.

Poor Norman, wasting his life away at a dead-end job. If he could do anything useful, he might have had a career that paid something. That way, his wife wouldn’t have to work and they wouldn’t be living in rundown slums.

Hapless/DREMT go into a loop on some semantic issue.
Flynn loops at once on his no-GHE molten rock theory.
JD goes from stupidity to insult.
Gordon has his ‘points refuted a thousand times’ and gish-gallop defense.

There are quite a few top-notch commenters: Tim, barry, Nate and Swanson to name a few. I’m glad MikeR is back too.

Well for the first time you are not a lying phony troll. You have posted an excellent self-assessment. You speak accurately about who and what you are. Congrats! You see yourself clearly!

How you see yourself: “He responds the only way he can, with insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations. He makes up stuff to attack others. He has no science, only his perverted opinions and his pseudoscience. He hopes that if he type out his opinions often enough, maybe they will come true.”

Yes indeed that describes you very well.

However, Norman reads textbook material on heat exchange, understands the underlying concepts of heat exchange, can use the equations to calculate actual heat exchange. Makes claims and offers much support with numerous links so other posters can read and learn the material. Does not rely on his own unsupported declarations and will only insult those who first taunt and belittle him. So you have yourself well analyzed. I hope you can appreciate the fact that I am considerably ahead of you in knowledge of Heat Transfer. One thing I have going for me that you lack is logical rational thought process. These tools help you understand your flaws and correct a incorrect view. You are a troll so you lack these valuable tools which would help you if you had them.

I don’t mean to imply that everything he says there is correct, but I find his idea of EMR as a continuous EM field generated by a transmitter, and that a photon of energy extracted from that field is dependent on the characteristics of the receiver and how it resonates with that field intriguing..

In any case his work on the effect of basaltic lava flows on ozone depletion seems solid..

And certainly if the amount of ozone in the atmosphere decreases then the amount of UVB reaching Earth’s surface increases.

With that in mind which of these do you think is more likely to add heat to the oceans:

An increase in exposure to UVB from a source at 5000+ K that penetrates some 40-50 meters into the ocean..

or an increase in exposure to IR from a source colder than the ocean that (at best!) penetrates a few mm ….

In light of the 2LOT that heat only naturally transfers from a hotter object to a colder object, the answer seems obvious to me.. and I would suggest that much more investigation of the effects of UVB on ocean temps is warranted… (anyone looking for a good idea for a Phd thesis? )

The part of his ideas that UV light could be the cause of ocean warming is not a bad idea and should be looked into. How much of an increase of UV reached the surface with the reduction of ozone?

I would like some research on this point.

I object to his ridiculous nonsense that if you have 20 photons you do not add the energy of the photons to find the total energy.

In one example he has different energy photons and concludes they do not merge into a higher energy level photon. I agree with that point but the energy will add in an absorbing surface. If you have 30 eV of energy absorbed by a surface it does not matter if it is by one photon, 30 or 3000. The end result is the same, the object increases by 30 eV.

Temperatures in some areas for the entire month of February have been close to 30 degrees below normal in Montana. During the first few days of March, the temperature departures have been even more extreme.

On Sunday, Great Falls, Montana, had an average temperature departure of 50 degrees below normal with a high of minus 8 and a low of minus 32. The average high and low for the city are 42 and 19, respectively.

Meanwhile, Britain just had its warmest winter days ever. There have been heatwaves in the past week in southern Australia, Europe and large parts of Asia. If you want to report weather instead of climate, how about you try some unbiased reporting.

This discussion about Macquarie Island sounds a bit strange, but… according to NOAA’s GHCN daily dataset, the trend there for the average temperature since Jan 1973 is… 0.00 C / decade (there is no data before).

The linear estimate for BoM’s minimum measurements since 1973 seems to confirm this: 0.02 C /decade. Thus the warming phase seems to have happened before 1973.

And indeed: the linear estimate for BoM’s data during 1949-1972 is 0.18 C / decade.

In any case, history tells you nothing about the future. Only the stupid and ignorant believe so, but luckily there seems to an inexhaustible supply of fools, so the future sellers can keep plying their silly trade.

Or are you another Bindidon of the trollish variety, who resorts to pointless ad homs?

So many Bindidons, so few answers. Have you read the BOM disclaimer? Do you not believe the BOM’s reservations about its data?

Keep believing that you can predict the future from the past. Can you predict horse race winners? How about the stock market? Are you fabulously wealthy yet? No? I wonder why – (only joking, of course).

I did not bother to convert to anomalies after seeing the Berkely Earth data which is in agreement. I went with a trendline from February 1949 until January 2019 so the end and start dates should not be an issue.

Yes if you choose to ignore the data before 1973 then you can get low trend values. If you use 47 years as your climatological criterion then are 25 such data sets starting for annual data for April 1949 to 1995 inclusive (data set 1) with the last for 1972 to 2018 (data set 25).

The values you get for these 25 data sets range from -0.018 to 0.14 degrees per decade so a cherry picker has many opportunities to select a 47 year period to suit their argument.

For example the 1973 to 2018 cherry pick gives a trend close to zero with an upper bound of 0.07 and a lower bound of -0.07 degrees per decade. The P value is 0.99.

Reminder for those with limited or no statistics the p value should be 0.05 or lower for statistical significance.

In contrast if you use all 70 years of data the trend is 0.09 degrees per decade with a lower bound of 0.05 and an upper bound of 0.13 degrees per decade. The p value is significant at 0.00004.

The 30 year climatological rule is probably appropriate for large data sets such as global data or data for large regions which have low ” noise”. For single stations and, particularly if the absolute value of the trend is small, then 47 years may not be long enough. In general the longer the better. Cherry picking shorter periods may give you your desired result but is a dumb idea because you are throwing away information. Shannon would turn in his grave.

If you have access to data for daily max and min temperatures at a resolution of 0.1 C for Macquarie Island prior to April 1948 I think you should provide it. It could settle these disputes, particularly if it goes back 4.5 billion years.

While I have yet to dismount my hobby horse, I think it might be opportune to point out to all those who frequent these comment sections, that a relatively constant forcing due to increasing C02 definitely does not imply that temperatures everywhere on the globe will increase (or decrease) uniformly and at the same rate.

I would have thought it would have been patently obvious that there are large variations spatially obviously due to a large range of geographic factors (witness the differential in temperature trends between equatorial regions the Arctic, Antarctica etc, etc.) . These factors include topography, insolation, proximity to sea , land, sea ice, ice on land, prevailing winds etc.. . Accordingly, anyone who claims that each region should respond identically to an increase in CO2 is either a fool or someone who is trying to run a straw argument.

Likewise, the idea that a constant forcing means that the temperature at a particular location or region must increase uniformly over time is propagating nonsense or skilled at constructing straw men (sometime overtly but often implicitly).

Only those who are blissfully ignorant of other factors that modulate or modify the temperatures, such as El-Nino, PDO, AMO (and the other quasi periodic factors denoted by a range of acronyms) , aerosols and volcanic activity, will fall for this kind of crap. I thought again, it would be obvious that sometimes the trend is less (even a pause or decrease is likely over some sub-interval) and at other times it will be greater than the average trend. Claims that this variation means that the global climate is unaffected by monotonically increasing concentrations of CO2, is to put it kindly, bizarre.

Today’s sermon is now over and I suspect that this will fall on deaf ears (or ears and eyes obscured by hands) and the usual suspects will continue to trot out their usual zombie arguments.

Doesn’t work, does it? The surface cools every night. Overall, it has cooled over the last four and a half billion years. No longer molten, you should have noticed by now.

The other major problem with your pseudoscientific nonsense is that insulation works in both directions. Hence, the highest surface temperatures are found in arid tropical deserts, characterised by the least GHGs in the atmosphere. No trapped heat. No accumulated heat. You are as dim as Trenberth.

Carry on being stupid and ignorant. CO2 provides no heat. No “Hottest year EVAH!” due to slower cooling. No GHE.

In a way, it is “data”. It is more data showing the AGW/GHE is nonsense. I stopped reading, due to laughter, when I got to this: “The dashed line represents a ‘blackbody’ curve characteristic of 300° K [sic]…”

Ignoring the fact that he uses the degree symbol (°) with “K”, thought out, he believes the curve is “characteristic” of 300 K. But the curve peaks at about 15 μ, corresponding to 193 K.

E-man, it’s curious how you are so easily deceived. The models don’t match the real data, because there is NO real data. There are only some cherry-picked, possibly “homogenized” incomplete “picture”. There is NO continuous global measurement of Earth’s surface emission and there is NO continuous global measurement of Earth’s DWIR.

Sorry, but your belief system is nonsense. It might be time to think for yourself.

In the long term (over four and a half billion years), the Earth has cooled.

In the short term (after the Sun has passed the zenith) the surface temperature falls – nighttime is an example.

Ira Glickstein wrote –

“Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up.” More stupid analogies. Not just a blanket – an electric blanket with with an external power supply!

What a fool!

Try again. See if you can claim that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, while keeping a straight face.

Keep posting links to your “evidence” if it makes you happy. Have as many tantrums as you like, or throw a few obscenities around. It won’t help.

Svante keeps linking to the MODTRAN computer model, that he can’t understand.

The model indicates a “ground temperature” of 299.7 K, for 400 ppm CO2. If you increase the CO2 to 4000 ppm, leaving everything else the same, the model indicates a ground temperature of 299.7 K. NO change.

Poor Svante. Even his beloved MODTRAN knows the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface.

That’s because it’s not an El Nino. According to BOM, the rising Pacific equatorial temperatures are just a transient and will be falling back to previous values over the next fortnight. But as you don’t trust BOM, you seem to have a bit of a dilemma.

The solar cycle is linked to both El Nino and the Southern Ocean temperatures. Use a 5 year moving average on the ocean temperature data and the link becomes very obvious. Basically, the frequency is the same, but the period start point is offset. (delay)What will the weakening sun and the magnetic field do to these cycles? Who knows, but yeah let’s keep Co2 front center and worry about 0.36 deg C of global warming when we should be worried about the Holocene abruptly ending similar to events seen in the proxy data. Also imagine a modern day Carrington event with a weak magnetic field and all this dependence on the grid. Where are our priorities?

Yeah I noticed that Ren first hand as I live right here in Michigan and I’ve watched that double vortex centered around the magnetic poles and El Nino trade punches. I was frankly surprised that the Feb data for USA48 came in where it did. I was expecting colder. The image shows for Detroit shows +2 deg C when the recorded temps averaged +0.2 deg F per NOAA. It’s just one spot check near where I live, and I understand it’s energy lost not the same as temperature but that is a large difference. As long as the methodology remains the same, we can use it to gauge the trends regardless. Around here summers are still getting warmer, but winters colder for 17 years now. I don’t believe NASA for one minute that there was no cooling from 1940-1980. I mean, it was public knowledge at the time things were getting colder with more ice, and they were worried about an ice age. How do they continue to get away with this? My friends and family are all brain washed! How to solve that is the biggest mystery. Anyways, the frustration is fresh for me because I really didn’t investigate this for myself until last October when I downloaded NOAA and HADSST data and checked for myself once and for all… and down the rabbit hole I went.

Just as a matter of interest, Berkeley Earth is nothing to do with the University of California, Berkely, but chose the name of its non-profit organisation (to ensure exemption from some Federal income taxes) to give an aura of authority, I believe.

Currently, they seem more interested in convincing the Chinese to stop smoking, and giving China incentives to stop using coal.

You can donate money via PayPal if you wish. They received $417 in 2014 from online donations. Every little bit helps.

For NOAA metrics, it’s likely a weak el Nino will be called for the last 6-7 months when March data come in. Their metric is NINO3.4 region sea surface temperatures at 0.5C or above for 5 consecutive 3-month blocks.

Sure, that would certainly be one way of doing it. There other ways as well. But in terms of an experiment relevant to the UAH dataset an observation other than a warming troposphere simultaneous with a cooling stratosphere would go a long way towards falsification of the GHE hypothesis. It has the added benefit of satisfying skeptical concerns that this or that experiment hasn’t been conducted on an Earthly scale. Well, this is literally the experiment they’ve been calling for and it’s been going on now since the late 1970’s. Unsurprisingly the UAH observations are consistent with the GHE hypothesis.

You have an idea that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface. Gordon Robertson is also a believer in this Claes Johnson opinion.

Now you can prove to the this blog world with actual tests. At least one of the three of you should be able to do it.

Get hold of a FLIR camera.

To set up a control, find an object with a distinct pattern that you can see when you reflect the image of a sheet of polished metal and will show up in the FLIR camera as this image so you can see what reflection looks like in such a device.

The IR energy from the person’s body is reflected from the glass and you can see his image.

Now once you get your control established with the target object,
Heat a surface to 500 K (don’t use an IR reflective surface for the test, use a material that absorbs IR well). Next take the object with a unique image and heat it to 300 K and bring it toward the 500 K surface. Hold your FLIR at some angle and based upon your physics you will see the image of the 300 K object reflected off the 500 K plate. If you do not see an image you are wrong. I would hope you could post the results on YouTube and put a link to the test for us to see.

I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.

Prove me wrong, you won’t be able to. My physics is based upon actual textbook physics. Yours is based upon blog science where people make up any idea they like and you think accepting them means you have a good open mind.

Science does not care about open minded state. It is about proof of ideas using actual observation, evidence, experiment.

I have done an experiment like the green/blue plate experiment, two different times, two different tests not exactly the same.

You guys won’t believe the results, and that is why I would ask you to do the experiment yourselves.

First one.

I was measuring the temperature of a heater block in a Gas Chromatograph to verify the operation of the instrument.

I removed the column and some insulation and stuck a calibrated thermocouple into the heater block and measured the temperature. It was too cold and I could only get conforming results if I replaced the insulation that I removed, with no other changes, the addition of the insulation raised the temperature of the heater block that the thermocouple was measuring.

Second one, more like the plate experiment.

I put a pot on the stove, I taped a thermocouple to the botton of a plate and put it on the top of the pot. Low heat and waited until the temperature was stable. I then put another plate on top of the first, inverted so there was only contact around the rim of both plates, and made no other changes, and watched the temperature. It went up.

bobdroege says: on Mar.7 at 9:39PM “Actually I showed that adding a cooler object causes a warmer object to become even warmer. Empirical evidence that something cool can cause something warmer to become even warmer. Which you would say violates the 2nd Law.”
The fact that the warmer object becomes even warmer does not violate the 2nd Law.
What violates the 2nd Law is claiming that the cause temperature increase of the warmer plate is a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the cooler object.

The reality is that every single Joule of heat/thermal energy that caused the increase in internal energy and temperature of the warmer object came from the continuous thermal energy/heat source, and not a single Joule of thermal energy/heat came from a transfer of thermal energy/heat from the colder object.

The cooler object acts as a radiation shield and reduces the transfer of thermal energy away from the warmer object because the warmer object is transferring heat to a higher temperature object than the previous surroundings, which allows the thermal energy from the constant heat source to accumulate in the warmer object, and thus increase the internal energy and temperature of the warmer object.
Thus all laws of thermodynamics are satisfied.

How about you perform the experiment yourself? Post the results on YouTube, with a link for us all to see.

Your predictions are not facts.

Here’s an experiment for you. Heat up some water. Put it in a freezer. Acoording to GHE nutters, the water must absorb photons from the walls of the freezer and get hotter. Post the results showing the water getting hotter on Youtube if you wish. Feel free to use as much CO2 as you like.

I don’t even know or care what your looney textbook physics says should happen. My prediction is that water put in a freezer will freeze.

“Heres an experiment for you. Heat up some water. Put it in a freezer. Acoording to GHE nutters, the water must absorb photons from the walls of the freezer and get hotter.”

You haven’t the foggiest idea how any of this works!

Of course, the water absorbs photons from the walls. But just a surely, the water — being warmer than the walls — will emit more photons than it absorbs. So the water cools. All according to the basic physics used by “nutters” like the military, physics professors, and actual practicing chemical engineers. People all the way back to Stefan, Boltzmann, and Kirchhoff had this figured out.

It’s not a question of how many photons. It’s a matter of the frequency of those photons. Single photon detectors can determine the frequency of that photon. Your naive perception has some basis in truth, as generally emissions from the environment are not monochromatic in nature. Hence, laws such as Newton’s Law of Cooling.

However, the takeaway is that the water cools. No heating, and no amount of semantic contortions can change this.

Your references did much good work, but had no experience with quantum electrodynamics. Just as Carnot came up with the Carnot cycle, in spite of the fact he believed in the caloric theory of heat.

So your “basic physics” may be wrong, as well as irrelevant. CO2 provides no heat. There is no GHE which results in higher temperatures due to increased CO2 between the heat source (the Sun), and a thermometer. No heating. A colder atmosphere does not “add heat” to the surface, any more than colder ice adds heat to water.

Anybody who believes otherwise is a nutter, regardless of their qualifications, intelligence, or occupation.

* Both the number and the frequency distribution matter. Since we are assuming a material with high emissivity, then we are — by diffinition — assuming a material that efficiently absorbs all frequencies of IR.

* Newton’s law of cooling is not based on light not being monochromatic.

* The frequency, speed, and wavelengths of light (including IR) was known to scientists in the 1800s. No single photon detectors need. Heck, you don’t even need to know about photons to determine these quantities.

* The takeaway is that water cools … and water warms! Whenever water (or anything else) gains more thermal energy than is loses, it warms up. Whenever water (or anything else) loses more thermal energy than is gains, it cools down. Cool surrounding do not provide heat — this is quite true. The cool surroundings DO impact how easily heat is lost. Hence they must have an effect of temperatures.

Tim says: “The cool surroundings DO impact how easily heat is lost. Hence they must have an effect of temperatures.”

Tim, you keep making the same mistakes. This goes back to the “plates”. The green plate does not affect the emission from the blue plate. The blue plate emits based on its temperature, nothing else. The green plate can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.

The spinning airplane prop IS spinning. You can NOT claim it is not spinning based on some arbitrary frame of reference. You would lose another arm trying to prove such nonsense.

“Both the number and the frequency distribution matter. Since we are assuming a material with high emissivity, then we are — by diffinition — assuming a material that efficiently absorbs all frequencies of IR”

See, this is what I’m talking about further downthread. Once again, Tim is implying “all photons are always absorbed”, regardless of temperature. Most likely, if I pressed Tim, I would get back a lengthy discussion of all other possible factors which might affect photon absorp.tion, besides temperature. Which, incidentally, is exactly what happened last time. They will not go on record and say: “OK, all else being equal, the only distinguishing factor between two surfaces being temperature, here is why some photons will be rejected, and others absorbed, by the warmer surface…”

“The green plate does not affect the emission from the blue plate. ”
Right. If the blue plate is at 244 K, it will emit 200 W/m^2 from its surfaces (left and right).

The point is that the green plate affects the ABSOR.PTION by the blue plate. IF the green plate is at 205 K and emits 100 W/m^2 toward the blue plate, those photons get absorbed by the blue plate. They must be absorbed if the blue plate is a blackbody (which was assumed for simplicity for the calculations in the initial problem). Kirchhoff showed how there could be violations of 2LoT if an object absorbed photons of a given wavelength differently that in emitted photons of that wavelength (including for non-blackbodies).

IF the green plate is at 205 K and emits 100 W/m^2 toward the blue plate, those photons get absorbed by the blue plate.

Major mix-up of observational/descriptive levels, Tim. Power density fluxes (W/m^2) and photons as single entities do not exist within the same realm. This kind of chronic conflation is what causes all the confusion (of people like Norman) regarding the transfer of energy between hot and cold.

The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate, Tim. The warmer plate emit [201-100=] 101 W/m^2 toward the cooler plate. We’re safely at the MACRO level here. If you move down into the quantum (MICRO) realm, you will see individual photons moving both from the warmer plate to the cooler AND from the cooler plate to the warmer, but what you observe, then, is an entirely different phenomenon, not at all a thermodynamic one.

If you will pull my name up and say I am confused then accept my challenge and support your claims. You can’t and you never will.

EMR is not a single fluid or body that flows from one object to another. You have the old view of the caloric.

All bodies emit as unique objects they have no concern about any other objects around them. There is not fluid flow of EMR.

Prove you case, I have proven mine with many links. You only link to your own website. You are a trained geologist and you act like a King expert in Heat Transfer but you don’t even get the basic right and continuously ignore my requests you prove your position. You won’t because you can’t. Your position would make it impossible to see individual objects in room filled with many objects.

No one here is confused but you. You are using an outdated rejected understanding of heat flow. The more valid and correct version is that Radiant heat flow is the amount of energy a body emits MINUS the energy it absorbs from its surroundings.

You also can’t grasp that emission of EMR and the process of absorbing IR are two separate process. There is no dime in one hand taken out. You can have enormous emission from a hot surface and very little absorbing when the hot Moon surface first reaches night or any other combination. They are not one process but distinct separate processes.

I doubt you will put out the effort to defend your crackpot physics. You just make up unsupported declarations like other skeptics on this blog. Never even attempting to prove them.

You use your own blog as proof, JDHuffman uses his own cartoon for proof. Neither of you will ever go to valid textbook science for proof.

Norman, your comment to Kristian on Mar.7,2019 at 8:31PM was a delusional rant projecting your own failings ignorance and misunderstandings of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and physics onto Kristian.

– I’ve seen Kristian expose you 2nd Law deniers’ pathetic and wrong understanding of thermodynamics numerous times.
– None of you has ever refuted anything Kristian has posted.
– You make evidence-free claims that the temperature of an always hotter object increases further solely as a result of the transfer of heat/thermal energy from an always colder object.
– You can’t cite or quote thermodynamics or heat transfer textbooks to support your crackpot physics and your anti-thermodynamics nonsense.
– You can’t give any real world evidence or examples of your anti-thermodynamic nonsense. Your claimed examples do no such thing. My heat transfer example proves that every Joule of energy that increases the internal energy/temperature of the always hotter object comes from the constant heat source, not from the always colder object. That example proves that you are 2nd Law deniers.
– You are hopelessly confused and conflicted, denying fundamental thermodynamics and heat transfer.
– You fail to grasp the fact that even the century-ago physicists recognized that the heat/thermal energy exchange process between two radiating bodies is unidirectional because “the cooling of a hot body and the cooling of a cold body happening simultaneously as part of the same phenomenon, and we describe this phenomenon as the passage of heat from the hot body to the cold one”- Maxwell. You wrongly believe that there are two separate phenomenon, heat/thermal energy being transferred from the hot body to the cold body AND heat/thermal energy being transferred from the colder body to the hot body. No such bidirectional heat/thermal energy transfer has ever been observed, detected or measured. The only thing that has ever been measured is the net radiation, which is the unidirectional thermal energy/heat transfer.

What else do you need me to clarify for you?
* That the freezer is plugged in and actually cold?
* That it is not salt water that is already colder than the freezer?
* That there is no heater inside the water keeping it warm?
* That there is not a perfectly reflecting layer around the ice preventing transfer of radiation?

There are infinite other things that COULD be happening. Warmer materials always have net radiation flows to cooler materials around them. Kirchhoff stated that more than a century ago. It is not a surprise, nor something that I need to repeat in every post I make!

You look extremely ignorant compared to Tim Folkerts. The difference is he actually studied real heat transfer and you have not. You have read blog posts by fringe crackpots that offer zero evidence for their declarations (hmmm that is what you do all the time) and post this material as if it were experimental physics.

You are wrong in your unsupported anti-science declaration. This one is not even remotely logic.

YOUR CLOWN PHYSICS: “Tim, AGAIN, whenever you make such a statement, without the clarification that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water, you are practicing pseudoscience.”

Freezer walls can raise the temperature of heated water if the freezer walls have an increase in temperature. Your declarations are lame and devoid of rational thought.

You should take your own advice: “Learn some physics, and clean up ypur act.”

Not that you ever will. You are not able to read well enough to learn actual physics. Some short blog articles are hard enough for you to process.

“that the freezer walls could never raise the temperature of the water”

I am curious — do you apply this principle to conduction too? Suppose I plug in my coffee pot (with a constant heater) and put it in my freezer @ -30 C. The water in the coffee pot will reach some warm temperature — maybe 50 C.

Then I adjust the thermostat on the freezer to only -1 C. Are you proposing that the coffee will stay at 50C? What if the walls of the freezer warm to 49.9 C? Will the coffee pot stay at 50 C?

Mike, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the core and mantel. Everyone acknowledges they have cooled over the past 4 billion years.

But we are discussing *climate* — temperatures and weather patterns affecting people and plants and animals at the surface. This area has clearly cooled and warmed numerous times over the past 4 billion years. So yes, there has been periods of global warming and periods of global cooling.

Once we acknowledge the actual question at hand, then we can start to address why this warming and cooling might occur.

JD, Let’s try some physics and ignore semantics for now. After all, we care about how the universe behaves, not what words people happen to use.

A sphere with an area of 1 m^2 is placed in a vacuum chamber (no conduction or convection). The surface of the sphere and the interior surfaces of the chamber have an emissivity of ~ 1. There is a 500 W heater inside the sphere. The walls of the chamber are cooled to 4.2 K (liquid Helium). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[306 K]

Warm the walls to 195 K (dry ice). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[318 K]

Warm the walls to 273 K (ice melting point). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[346 K]

Warm the walls to 293 K (room temperature). What temperature will the sphere be once it stabilizes?
[357 K]

Is there anything here you disagree with? Does the sphere warm up as the walls warm up?

But as those surroundings grow warmer, that second term can no longer be ignored, and the net transfer from the object to the surroundings becomes less than the maximum potential.

This becomes a problem for the object once it is already constantly heated by a third body/region, a heat source, like our Sun, or Tim’s 500W internal heater.

You see, the amount of internal energy [U] inside an object is set at the balance point between its heat INPUT and its heat OUTPUT. Our sphere’s heat OUTPUT is its radiative emission flux to its surroundings, while its heat INPUT is constantly provided by its internal heater.

Once the sphere’s surroundings become warmer, the sphere’s radiative emission flux (P/A) to those surroundings becomes smaller, and an imbalance between the sphere’s heat INPUT (constant) and its heat OUTPUT (reduced) arises: Q_in > Q_out => +Q_net => +U => +T. Energy naturally accumulates inside the sphere as a result, which makes it warm. This process will continue until the heat balance is finally restored: Q_in = Q_out => Q_net = 0.

Same thing applies at Earth’s top-of-atmosphere (ToA): heat flux IN from the Sun (ASR) minus heat flux OUT from the Earth (OLR) equals net heat flux. If the ToA net heat flux (ASR-OLR) is zero, then no energy accumulates within the Earth system, and there is no overall warming. If there’s a positive imbalance (ASR>OLR), however, then there will be warming (+U => +T).

Sure. As long as its surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can be effectively neglected (as in the case of Earth’s heat loss to space (the OLR) at the top of the atmosphere (ToA)). That’s the condition in which the S-B equation was originally empirically discovered and defined (and later mathematically derived).

But the HEAT LOSS from an object is NOT based solely on its own surface temperature (except under the ideal conditions above). And it’s the final balance between an object’s heat GAIN (from its heat source) and its heat LOSS (to its heat sink) that determines its temperature. And temperature is specifically what we’re discussing here.

The heat loss from a warmer object is based on the temperature DIFFERENCE between itself and its cooler surroundings. The smaller that temperature difference, the smaller the heat loss. This is Thermodynamics 101.

Nothing else matters. The surroundings don’t matter.

When it comes to heat transfer between an object and its surroundings, the surroundings don’t just matter; they make all the difference.

You appear to be confusing heat transfer with emission.

Hehe, not at all. Rather, you appear for some reason to want to divert our attention away from the issue at hand, which is whether or not the surface temperature of a constantly heated object will rise as we make its thermal surroundings grow warmer.

It will. By thermodynamic necessity. The working mechanism is called ‘insulation’. You might’ve heard of it …

“((An object’s) surroundings are so much colder than the object that they can be effectively neglected is) the condition in which the S-B equation was originally empirically discovered and defined (and later mathematically derived).”

Not so Kristian, if you actually walk/drive over to the library, or internet hunt for the original empirical discovery experiment papers, then find the object’s surroundings were also much warmer than the object not “so much colder” as you write.

The radiant energy from a warmer object is NOT based on the temperature DIFFERENCE between itself and its cooler surroundings, the ideal radiant energy emitted at each wavelength (sometimes per steradian when meaning luminous intensity) is solely based on the object’s equilibrium temperature.

This is where Kristian’s confusion from incorrectly using the heat term causes Kristian to make errors in practical atm. thermodynamics. When used correctly, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.

“JDHuffman and DREMT…You have an idea that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface…”

Woah there, Norman. Steady on. Now, as we’ve seen further upthread, you’re a little bit obsessed with me, and you’re entirely obsessed with JD – but there’s no need to just make stuff up. JD made the statement that all photons from a 300 K object would be rejected by a 500 K surface, in the comments under an older article, not me. He then stopped commenting under that article. Others there were still commenting, expecting a response, and acting as though the lack of response meant something (trolls being trolls, what do you expect?). So, I did what members of the group of professional sophists who have completely overwhelmed this blog through weight of numbers and are here specifically to defend the GHE month after month (yourself included, Norman) would NEVER do to one another – I put JD on the spot, on a more active thread where he was currently commenting. I brought it up, because I was interested in the discussion. I could have left it, leaving JD to “get away with” saying it without having to defend it, but I didn’t.

It’s not my idea and I’m not saying it’s right, or wrong. What I noted at the time it was discussed in more detail was, those asking others to be skeptical about “all photons being rejected” because of the temperature difference were not asking others to be skeptical of the other end of the scale, that “all photons would be absorbed” despite the temperature difference. All their arguments seemed to imply that there was no temperature-based limit on absorp.tion of photons. This struck me as suspicious.

“I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.”

OK, finally, “most of”. So at least you are acknowledging that there is some temperature-based limit on absorp.tion. So, maybe I can get a straight answer for the first time from one of you guys: by what mechanism is “some of” the IR from the 300 K object rejected by the 500 K object?

DREMT, I didn’t mean to leave your question unanswered. I think I have answered a similar question before, but will do so again.

A 300 K black body will emit a spectrum with the peak energy at a wavelength of about 9.7 μ. The 500 K black body will have a different spectrum with the peak energy at about 5.8 μ. Black bodies, at different temperatures, will have different spectra.

The two spectra will overlap. That is, some of the photons arriving the 500 K BB will actually have enough energy to be absorbed. That is confusing to clowns, because they believe “absorbing” translates to “raising the temperature”. That’s why I changed the ΔT, trying to make it less confusing.

They just don’t understand the relevant physics, and can’t learn. If you try to teach them with simple examples, they just get frustrated and start hurling their slime.

The 500 K BB absorbing SOME photons from the 300 K BB does NOT translate to “cold” warming “hot”. It is analogous to pouring a liter of 20 C water into a 100 liter bathtub of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the 100 liter vat, but the temperature did not increase.

Again, I apologize for missing your question. I always try to reapond to responsible questions.

Not a problem, in fact when I raised the point at the more recent article you were commenting under, you did provide a straightforward answer at the time, in response to Chic.

I would like to hear from Norman, about his statement about how the 500 K object is absorbing “most of” the IR from the 300 K object. This implies he agrees that at least “some of” the IR is rejected. I’d like to know whether the mechanism he proposes for “some of” the IR getting rejected is actually just the same as what you explained to Chic, in the first place. I have never seen a straight answer, from any of the GHE defenders, on a temperature-based reason why ANY IR would be rejected rather than absorbed. It simply is not something they seem to want to go on record as discussing (perhaps because it does away with their “intelligent photon” straw man that they like to bash).

Well thanks bob, it’s nice to have the extremist viewpoint so openly and straightforwardly declared. Was actually hoping to hear from Norman, but I guess you’re all the same, and speak with one united voice on every subject. So, cheers.

“It’s a two color problem, if you are not in the Dremt and JD camp, commonly referred to as the ****** (a small French coin) camp, then you are an extremist.”

No, I actually thought I’d made it pretty clear that I considered “all photons rejected” or “all photons absorbed” the extremes. “Rejected” is the term Norman used, and I was attempting to talk to Norman.

Optical properties of surfaces are vastly complicated when you get into the nitty-gritty.

How well light gets reflected (not “rejected”) or absor.bed from a surface depends on (among other things).
* the bulk material
* oxidation, etc at the surface
* surface roughness
* the wavelength of the incoming light

And yes, the temperature of the surface can make some difference too (but not in he way many seem to think).

Emissivity is one step more complicated. We need to integrate absor.ption over all the wavelengths that the surface could emit at its current temperature. For instance, silica absorbs nearly all IR below 4 um, so room temp silica would have an emissivity very close to 1.0, since rm temp materials can emit very little EM radiation at wavelengths below 4 um. But heat the silica to 1000 C and now it can emit in the visible range. But in this range, the absor.ption is poor, so the emission is poor, so the emissivity would drop well below 1.0.

Basically, the details are complicated! ALL of these values are functions of many variables, including temperature.

OK Tim, I guess Norman will stand corrected on the “rejected” term, but it doesn’t particularly bother me what words people use, when we’re talking about the same thing in any case. I’d say that’s pretty much the response I was expecting from you, although you did surprise me by including any place at all for temperature in your explanations. A bit more honest than bobdroege or Svante. Thanks. More input awaited.

Here are a couple links demonstrating the change in emissivity based upon temperature. One is of GHG and the other a solid surface.

Both decrease with an increase in temperature. My research from statistical thermodynamics is that as the object gets hotter more surface molecules are in excited states and will not absorb incoming photons.

Yes, the emissivity of CO2 and H20 decrease as they get hotter. This is primarily due to the bands or IR that they can absorb, combined with Wein’s Law. (Not some sort of saturation of molecular vibrations)

For example, CO2 emits well near 14-16 um. If the CO2 is ~ 190K, then Wein’s Law tells us that the peak wavelength is near 15 um. The CO2 is trying to produce IR near 15 um (due to temperature) and it can produce IR near 15 um (based on molecular vibrations), so it emits efficiently, ie the emissivity is high.

If the CO2 is ~ 500K, then the peak wavelength is near 6 um, but CO2 cannot produce IR near 6 um (based on molecular vibrations), so it emits poorly, ie the emissivity is low.

If the CO2 is ~ 1000K, then the peak wavelength is near 3 um, and CO2 can produce IR in a couple bands near 2.5 um & 4.5 um, so it emits efficiently, ie the emissivity is high.

If the CO2 is ~ well above 1000K, then the peak wavelength drops below 2 um, and there are no more strong emission bands for CO2 below 2.5 um, so it emits poorly, ie the emissivity is low.

These exact features are seen in the graph you linked to! Emissivity is high at low temperatures, dips around 500K, rebounds around 1000 K, and then tails off at higher temperatures.

************************************

The same approach works for H20 in your link. It has more IR bands and wider IR bands, so overall the emissivity is higher than CO2. When you get to higher temperatures and shorter average wavelengths where H20 has fewer, weaker bands, the emissivity tails off.

As the peak EMR emission of a blackbody (what an emissivity is compared to) moves with increasing temperature the gases emissivity goes down in comparison to the blackbody curve since they can’t emit at those wavelengths. Thanks for correcting my thought.

If all the vibrational levels are filled because of a high temperature, the surface will emit a massive amount of IR but can it then absorb external IR or would it then reflect off since all the possible vibrational states of the molecules are filled?

In this paper it shows that for temperatures we talk about (300-500 K) most molecules are in ground states can can absorb all energy that will move the molecules to the correct vibrational state.

I am not sure I am correct in my thinking on this but I want the correct information.

Molecules vibrate with quantized energy levels. As you noted, at low temperatures, most are in the ground state. There are multiple excited states, each with an energy h-bar * omega higher than the previous. So even if the atom is in the first excited state, it could still absorb a photon (or get hit my some other molecule) and get bumped to the 2nd excited state.

Norman, as I explained, I was not remotely concerned by your use of the word “rejected”. Fine by me. The people who seemed bothered by it enough to mention it were bobdroege and Tim. Tim, the person who said upthread, “JD, Let’s try some physics and ignore semantics for now. After all, we care about how the universe behaves, not what words people happen to use“.

Thanks for your link to the calculator.

Now, you stated that “most of” the IR from the 300 K object is absorbed by the 500 K object. This implies that you think at least “some of” the IR is rejected. What is the mechanism by which you think the 500 K surface rejects “some of” the IR, whilst absorbing the rest? Assume the only difference between the two surfaces is temperature.

DRsEMT, You are tossing out a bogus hypothetical question to add to the confusion. As bobdroege and others have pointed out, there’s no material which exhibits a surface with a complete absorp_tion of a blackbody. But, those photons which aren’t absorbed don’t simply vanish, they will be absorbed by another surface or head out to deep space. If you had read Holman’s section on radiation heat transfer, you would be aware that the geometry of the situation determines where those reflected photons end up. And, there’s the possibility for multiple reflections between 2 bodies, such as parallel planes, which makes the math more interesting.

There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that those photons carry any “memory” of the temperature of their source, besides their wavelength within the emission spectrum. Thus, there’s no reason, based on physics, to claim that the thermal IR EM radiation from a colder body can’t be absorbed by a hotter body.

“DRsEMT, You are tossing out a bogus hypothetical question to add to the confusion.”

Incorrect, Swanson, I am referring to Norman’s statement, that I quoted in my initial comment at March 6, 6:13am, and asking him to explain himself. I am trying to cut through the confusion that others, including yourself, are deliberately adding.

This was the statement:

“I predict you will not see any image because the 500 K object is absorbing most of the IR the 300 K object is emitting.”

DRsEMT, I’m just trying to be sure that you don’t take off on another wild goose chase, like your repeated claims about the insulating effect of the anodized coating on my Green and Blue plates. In that exchange, you never presented any analysis (as in math), to show how large that effect might be. You only posted a reference to a figure in a report that you dredged up somehow, which you completely misunderstood. When I did the calculations, the effect turned out to be trivial. Troll on…

You can’t blame me for being skeptical, Swanson, considering those red flags. I’m not sure calculating the thermal resistance of a material with varying conductivity through the surface is as straightforward as you think. Plus, why would a company selling anodized aluminium claim its product does not conduct heat well? Still not sure about it, and I’m continuing to look into it.

DRsEMT, You aren’t being skeptical. You are denying the science when you tossed out a red herring lacking any analysis to support your conjecture. Calculating the thermal resistance isn’t that difficult, as I demonstrated. Of course, a more accurate assessment is possible, but my back-of-the-envelope calculation shows it’s a small factor. Furthermore, your link to the metal finishing company doesn’t provide any data to support their statement regarding the insulation properties.

Not to mention, you still haven’t come up with an explanation for the warming of the Blue plate after the Green plate is moved. Now that your red herring’s been trashed, where’s your skepticism when it counts?

Swanson, please stop trying to change the topic due to your being butthurt by the massive holes pointed out in your experiment. I think people selling a product are likely to be aware of the properties of that product. Perhaps they, you know, actually tested it? Let me know once you have calculated the thermal resistance going through your plate due to: One layer of paint, thickness and thermal properties unknown. One layer of anodic coating, thickness unknown, conductivity extremely low. One layer of unspecified aluminium alloy, conductivity unknown. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of epoxy adhesive, thickness unknown, conductivity extremely low. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of unspecified aluminium alloy, as previously. One layer of anodic coating, as previously. One layer of paint, as previously.

…please stop trying to change the topic due to your being butthurt by the massive holes pointed out in your experiment.

If you are really a “skeptic” you would provide some evidence to support your claim that there are “massive holes” in my demonstration. You offer a rather detailed list of the layers on surface of the Green and Blue plates, perhaps to support your contention that these really are “massive holes”. Of course, being a denialist troll instead of a scientist or engineer, you haven’t as yet provided any analysis to back up your claim. Pointing to a graph in a report, which you incorrectly interpreted in claiming it “proves” the anodized layer has a major effect, is not analysis.

It seems that you’re apparently unable to provide a physics based reason for the warming of the Blue plate. I’ve claimed all along that it’s the “back radiation” from the Green plate, which agrees with the text book description from Holman and others who actually work in industry. I hope that you at least agree that radiation shields really do work as described.

Norman, you stated that “most of” the IR from the 300 K object is absorbed by the 500 K object. This implies that you think at least “some of” the IR is rejected. What is the mechanism by which you think the 500 K surface rejects “some of” the IR, whilst absorbing the rest? Assume the only difference between the two surfaces is temperature.

As an interesting aside, on my comment directly above, I’ve seen some claim that emissions from a colder object can actually cool a warmer object. That is interesting because if it were true, it would mean the cooler atmosphere can cool Earth’s hotter surface.

NO that is NOT what they actually say. It is only what you think they say. I think most have tried to be extremely explicit with you on the correct point, I don’t think it helps you at all.

The actual point is that the cooler sky is much warmer than the much cooler space (in terms of the IR the surface can absorb from each source). With a constant solar input to the surface the Earth’s surface will be warmer with an IR active atmosphere emitting IR toward the surface than if no such atmosphere existed.

That would depend upon the rate of rotation of the body. If the body rotated fairly rapidly it would get much closer to the equilibrium temperature of 255 K over most the sphere. It would be warmer at the equator and colder at the poles unless you added a rapid wobble so the poles would receive more energy.

You are not logical or scientifically knowledgeable to even remotely hope to understand my last post so you can only respond with an empty comment.

Maybe ask gallopingcamel he did some work on this issue.

Not that it would help you. You made up physics is failing you so you only can respond with empty posts.

Pretend you studied physics. Pretend you know heat transfer. Ball4 is right, keep the comedy flowing. Your wacky made up ideas can amuse people. I don’t really have to try to protect science against someone like you. I just can sit back an be entertained at your funny attempts to pretend to know physics. Post on give us a laugh!

You keep bringing this point up. I keep explaining it. You don’t understand my explanation and then bring it back up again.

YOU: “It is analogous to pouring a liter of 20 C water into a 100 liter bathtub of 40 C water. Energy has been added to the 100 liter vat, but the temperature did not increase.”

Because you do have more energy added but you also have increased the mass of the water. You had 100 kg of water and after adding you have 120 kg. Now you take the additional added energy and spread it around the greater mass and the temperature drops some.

Bad analogy. You seem to favor the fantasy physics of Claes Johnson over the actual physics of statistical thermodynamics. Your choice, don’t pretend you studied real physics. I have read the crackpot work of Claes Johnson. Bad physics, he does not know what he is talking about.

Adding 20 C water to the larger body of of 40 C water is the analogy to a hotter body accepting photons from a colder body. The temperatures of the larger body of water, and the hotter body, would not increase.

Your analogy does not represent how the atmosphere would work in the Earth/Sun system. Your analogy would be comparable to adding a cold atmosphere to a non-heated, but currently hot, planet and the surface and atmosphere would reach a colder temperature.

In the real system we have a constant input and output of energy. You make the same mistake all the skeptics seem to make. You are dealing with NON-HEATED objects.

In your bathtub analogy it would be like you heat 100 liters of water to a certain temperature but you have water continuously being added so there is an overflow port on the side. In the first case you have 1 C water continuously added to the heated tub of water. It reaches a certain equilibrium state. In the next case you use the waste of the heated water to heat the cold water before it is added to the tub. You are not adding new energy but reclaiming energy that had already been added. Now the cold water added is 20 C (warmed from 1 C to 20 by the waste from the tub overflow). Do you not see that the tub of water in the second case will reach a higher temperature than in the first case. No new energy was added.

I do not think your mind is capable of understanding the logic of the GHE no matter what analogy is used, no matter what textbook data is given to you and no matter what actual experiments are performed showing you how it works. You refuse to even listen yet you think you possess an open mind and are able to think.

Your thoughts are isolated to only radical unscientific denier blogs. Science deniers like Joseph Postma and Principia Scientific and others. Nothing will change the deep state you are in. Almost like a hypnotic effect I would think, some mantra chanting.

Since you were not able to explain what parts of my analogy you could not understand it would indicate that you have very poor reading comprehension (which is why you can’t read textbook material or posts more that 10 words long) or you are just a troll. I hope it is the former but suspect it is the latter.

The words are fine, your inability to read well is your problem not mine. Perhaps you should consider the flaw is on your end.

If you are able to point out which parts of my analogy are giving you difficulty in understanding I can work to clear it up. I am certain you are not really interested. The only thing that seems to activate you is trolling.

At last the riddle of climate change has been solved with 21st Century physics supported by overwhelming evidence on Earth and throughout the Solar System. This video presents a whole new paradigm in climate science showing why surface temperatures are not determined by radiative forcing from the cold atmosphere, but rather by gravity forming a stable non-zero temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere, this being the state of thermodynamic equilibrium which thus allows a most surprising heat transfer from cold to hot and yet still in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics because entropy is increasing. See my new 15 minute video at: https://youtu.be/bT1iFhGKOI8

You might have misinterpreted what you read somewhat. I did not see any references to rate of cooling of the surface.

However, other calculations for the surface give a figure roughly similar to yours – up to about 4 millionths of a K per year. Or you could take the average so beloved of pseudoscientific climatological types, and assume an initial molten temperature of say, 5000 K, and an age of four and a half billion years.

Anyone who can average weather records to produce climate should have no problem.

Any similarity to a proper calculation, taking into account decreasing radiogenic heat sources, non-linear cooling rates, and such things is purely coincidental.

It doesn’t matter. As you point out the Earth is cooling – not getting hotter. Thanks for referring to real science for a change. It is appreciated.

Water vapor is a ghg. It increased about 7% 1960-2002. During that time, atmospheric WV increased 5 molecules for each CO2 molecule added to the atmosphere. The level of WV in the atmosphere is self-limiting. Except for the aberration of el Ninos, WV appears to have stopped increasing in about 2002-2005 as did GW. CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

Water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect on Earths climate. However, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is controlled by air temperature, unlike other greenhouse gases, which are controlled by emissions (Myhre et al. 2013). Other greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, impact the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through modulating the air temperature. The strong coupling between water vapor content and air temperature provides the basis for a strong positive water vapor feedback that amplifies the initial temperature changes induced by other greenhouse gases.

Bin,, Sorry I missed this earlier. I dont read French but could tell there is an abstract in English below the French one. One of the things I take issue with is the statement that CO2 increases the ghe. I list 8 cases of compelling evidence it does not in Section 2 of my blog/analysis. This is in spite of CO2 being a ghg. My explanation for this apparent contradiction is that the slight increase in absorbers at the surface from the added CO2 is compensated by the added emitters above 10 km or so.

“Mike, I would be fascinated to hear why you are so focused on the core and mantel. Everyone acknowledges they have cooled over the past 4 billion years.”

Tim has decided he can ignore what I wrote, and instead tell me what he thinks I should have written – as usual.

No direct quotation of what I wrote – as usual.

It is accepted by most people that the surface lies between the core and outer space. Its temperature lies somewhere between say 6000 K and around 4 K. Assuming that neither the core nor outer space increase in temperature, the surface as a whole cannot get hotter. I merely point out from time to time the Earth is a big blob of mostly molten rock. Cooling slowly, as Nature decrees.

Tales of the surface heating spontaneously seem far fetched. No plausible physical reason is ever advanced for repositioning the surface along the thermal gradient.

Interglacial periods are the earth’s surface warming between glacial periods within an ice age. So you can either a) deny that ice once covered much of North America and Asia as a “far-fetched tale” or 2) accept that the surface has gotten warmer since 20,000 years ago.

MF, In earlier epochs when the Antarctic was warmer, it’s location wasn’t at the South Pole. Then too, the Earth’s climate changed, beginning about 3.3 million years BP, slipping into the period of Ice Ages with short warm periods which we now enjoy. Your Snowball Earth appears to have happened long before that and may have more than more than once.

Snowball Earth would have been unavoidable for much longer stretches of time had it not been for the GHE since the Sun is ~1% dimmer for every 120 million years in the past.

Paleoclimate is consistent with the GHE hypothesis. It’s much more difficult to solve paleolimate issues like the faint young Sun paradox or the more recent glacial/interglacial cycles if you selectively ignore the GHE.

Snowball Earth would have been unavoidable for much longer stretches of time had it not been for the GHE since the Sun is ~1% dimmer for every 120 million years in the past.

Paleoclimate is consistent with the GHE hypothesis. It’s much more difficult to solve paleolimate issues like the faint young Sun paradox or the more recent glacial/interglacial cycles if you selectively ignore the GHE.

Hehe, no. All you need is a difference in total atmospheric mass (weight, density, pressure, viscosity) and a difference in global cloud cover (fraction and distribution), wind/circulation and precipitation patterns.

The main single “heater” of the atmosphere is the transfer of latent heat from the surface: 88 W/m^2. Second is the incoming solar heat (net SW): 75 W/m^2. A distant third is the radiative heat from the surface (net LW): 33 W/m^2, and in fourth place is conduction: 24 W/m^2.

So the Earth sheds more than 90% of its heat (220 out of a total 240 W/m^2) to space from the atmosphere and less than 10% from the surface.

The atmosphere can ONLY be cooled through radiation to space, but can be heated by both the release of latent heat of vaporization, conduction AND radiation (incoming from the Sun (net SW: ~70%) and outgoing from the surface (net LW: ~30%).

So the atmosphere’s radiative properties in isolation (its ability to reflect/scatter, absorb and emit EMR) act – on balance – to strongly COOL the atmosphere, not heat/warm it.

The release of the latent heat of vaporization doesn’t provide any heat to the atmosphere, it just moves heat from the surface where the water is vaporized to higher up where the latent heat is released.

The longwave from the surface is the predominant heater of the atmosphere, there is no net unless you have two directions of heat flow.

The release of the latent heat of vaporization doesn’t provide any heat to the atmosphere, it just moves heat from the surface where the water is vaporized to higher up where the latent heat is released.

Besides, what does this even mean? “[I]t just moves heat from the surface where the water is vaporized to higher up where the latent heat is released.

Er, yes. And this is called heat transfer. From “the surface” (as you write) to “higher up” (as you also write), which is … inside the atmosphere.

Are you really this ignorant? I think you should stop embarrassing yourself, bob, and go pick up a book on this subject.

The longwave from the surface is the predominant heater of the atmosphere (…)

No, bob. Just no. If you seriously think that the UWLWIR from the surface is the radiative HEAT transferred from the surface to the atmosphere, then you are less informed than what even I initially gave you credit for.

So, tell me, do you also believe that the DWLWIR from the atmosphere to the surface constitutes radiative HEAT from the former to the latter?

You NEED TO go back and think this through properly, bob, before you return with another reply on this one …

(…) there is no net unless you have two directions of heat flow.

There are NEVER “two directions of heat flow” within one and the same heat transfer. The heat IS the net flow.

IOW, the radiative heat from the warm surface to its cooler thermal surroundings (the atmosphere+space) is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, the net LW.

“Net heat” is Q_in minus Q_out. But those are distinctly two separate heat transfers. The first is from the hot reservoir (heat source) to the object, the second is from the object to the cold reservoir (heat sink).

No. It’s HEAT that’s doing the heat transfer, bob. Phenomena such as heat, temperature, pressure and power density fluxes (W/m^2) do not exist in the quantum realm, while photons do not exist in the thermodynamic realm.

Heat is a thermodynamic (macroscopic) quantity. As is temperature. You can’t heat something by throwing photons at it, bob. Heat is something else, something more …

You apparently don’t get the distinction.

So why not pick up a textbook on basic thermodynamics and learn something? Rather than just keep posting replies without substance.

Photon’s do not possess heat; only massive objects possess a measure of their constituent particle KE. Anyone can increase the temperature of sufficiently illuminated massive object by throwing (Kristian term) photons at it through a vacuum (like the Sun/Earth) this is termed a heating process.

Of course there is, bob. In the sense of them being vastly different observational and descriptive levels. They simply represent fundamentally different aspects of reality. Heck, there are even different kinds of physics describing the processes that go on in each realm. We separate between them in pointing out how temperature is distinctly a MACRO (thermodynamic) phenomenon and a photon or a molecule is distinctly a MICRO (quantum) phenomenon. Basic stuff.

(…) there is jsut the world (…)

Of course there is just “the world”. No one’s claiming otherwise. But that’s not the point. It seems to me you don’t WANT to get this.

Do you know the tool that physicists use to tie the micro and the macro realms together, bob? It’s called “statistical mechanics”. You go from chaos and randomness to consistent patterns and order by using statistics (probabilities). There is no other way.

Have you heard of “the thermodynamic limit”? Do you know what it is and what makes it relevant to what we’re discussing?

(…) and if you attack a problem using either scientific discipline, you have to get the same answer.

Nope. You can’t use quantum mechanics to figure out changes in temperature of objects and the direction and magnitude of heat fluxes, bob. For that you need statistical mechanics. To average disordered quantum phenomena into an ordered thermodynamic process.

Thermodynamics is necessary part of climate studies. All the way back to at least Lord Kelvin who introduced the notion of thermal movement in a paper. Even Fourier applied what became thermodynamics to the atm.

No. Not sloppy. You don’t know what heat is, bob. So you use it INCORRECTLY. And you believe the conceptual blackbody emission from the surface up (the UWLWIR), mathematically derived directly from the surface temperature, to be the radiative HEAT flux to the atmosphere.

How ignorant is that …!!???

Everybody does that when they use the term heat transfer.

No. Just people who don’t understand what heat is use it incorrectly. People who understand basic thermodynamic principles use the term consistently and correctly.

If it is already in transfer adding the term transfer just adds confusion.

No. The term “heat transfer” describes a process. The term “heat” describes a quantity.

But maybe I need to repost the link to the CO2 laser melting steel.

Why? To show me how heat heats!?

“It is heated by HEAT !!!!!!! Photons themselves dont heat anything!”

Retract this statement as it shows how little you understand.

Photons are the particle that transfers the energy from the sun to the earth.

Indeed. But it is the solar HEAT that heats the Earth. Not the photons emitted by the Sun.

See if you can figure out the distinction … What constitutes the solar heat, bob? What’s the quantity? The Q_sw?

I think the engineer’s toolbox disagrees with you on what constitutes heat.

No. It doesn’t. The thermodynamic definition of heat [Q] is universal. It is but one thing.

“It should be noticed that the word “heat” has not appeared yet. If there is a temperature difference between a body and its surroundings, then, in a given interval of time, the body loses an amount of internal energy [U] equal to the energy radiated minus the energy absorbed, whereas the surroundings gain an amount of internal energy equal to the energy absorbed minus the energy radiated. The gain of the surroundings equals the loss of the body.The gain or loss of internal energy of the body, equal to the difference between the energy of the thermal radiation which is absorbed and that which is radiated, is called heat [Q].This statement is in agreement with the original definition of heat, since a gain or loss of internal energy by radiation and absorp.tion will take placeonly if there is a difference in temperaturebetween a body and its surroundings. If the two temperatures are the same, there is no net gain or loss of internal energy of either body or its surroundings, and there is, therefore, no transfer of heat.”

Kristian quotes Zemansky: “The gain or loss of internal energy of the body…is called heat [Q].”

Original copyright 1937.

Zemansky by 1969* had advanced beyond the concept of heat being called such a thing: “I admit that, at times, I have been guilty of watering down the explanation of internal energy…It is incredible that writers and teachers are still referring to the “heat in a body”…There is no such thing as the “heat in a body.””

*Paper delivered at a meeting of international physics experts in Copenhagen.

When used correctly in modern day, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.

The use of enthalpy (h) is even better, more meaningful in thermodynamics.

The only reason I’m still addressing you at all is because of your initial inane response where you stated: “(…) and the most predominant is the radiation, because that can heat the whole atmosphere as per the Trenberth diagram and is responsible for 80% of the atmospheric heating.”

Which quite frankly reveals a staggering level of ignorance. It shows how you believe, apparently in earnest, that the radiative HEAT (!!) from the surface to the atmosphere is simply the UWLWIR, the temperature-derived 390-400 W/m^2 blackbody emission flux of the surface.

IT … IS … NOT !!!

Right there and then you basically disqualified yourself from any further discussion on the topic of what warms the surface (which is first and last a THERMODYNAMIC problem) … before properly educating yourself on it. Instead, though, you just dug your heels in and have been waffling on no end about photons and heat and CO2 lasers ever since. And you’re still at it …

bobdroege says, March 11, 2019 at 9:34 PM:

The sun transfers enthalpy from the sun to the earth by using photons as the transfer mechanism.

Hehe. Kind of. And kind of not. I see your confusion and how you refuse to let go of it.

The Sun sends out photons into space. Some of those photons reach Earth, and of the photons reaching Earth, some are absorbed by the Earth system, while others are not – they are rather directly reflected back to space.

The total amount of photons from the Sun that is absorbed by the Earth system is the net SW, also known as ASR (‘Absorbed Solar Radiation’) or … the solar HEAT to the Earth [Q_in(sw)].

The average intensity of this flux is about 240 W/m^2. That’s the average heat input from the Sun to the Earth system, and consequently the flux that the Earth system needs to balance through its heat output to space. Earth’s heat output to space is called the OLR (‘Outgoing Long-wave Radiation’) or Q_out(lw).

The heat balance at the top of Earth’s atmosphere (ToA), then, looks like this:

Q_in(sw) – Q_out(lw) = Q_net

Q_net is the net flux everyone’s talking about. Whenever it is positive (Q_in(sw) > Q_out(lw)), net energy accumulates inside the Earth system, and we get overall warming. And whenever it is negative (Q_in(sw) < Q_out(lw)), the Earth system is drained of internal energy, and we get overall cooling.

How long before ice-free Arctic…? Well, since the trend over the last 10 years has been roughly flat, its hard to say. But I predict that the Northwest Passage will be blocked again this year, given the current ice buildup, so maybe never?. At least until after the next ice age when serious warming will return.

Also, by ice free I assume you mean less than 1 Wadham (sp?), correct?

Clowns believe the green plate can raise the temperature of the blue plate. They use perverted physics, and phony “experiments”, to “prove” it. When faced with the reality that the plates, in exact contact, would have exactly the same temperature, they just ignore the facts.

Here’s some more facts they can ignore.

Position a second green plate on the left side of the blue plate, close but not touching. Instead of radiatively warming the blue plate with 400 Watts, warm it electrically with 400 Watts. Everything else remains the same.

Of course, all three plates would have the equilibrium temperature of 244 K. But, that destroys the pseudoscience that the green plates can warm the blue plate.

Busting pseudoscience is so much fun. And so easy to do….

(Just mentally add another green plate to the left of the blue plate. All arrows would be the same as shown. I’m too lazy to do another diagram.)

You are a really ignorant poster. You are completely wrong. Do your own experiment and show the world how ignorant you are. Worse than ignorant (which can be corrected by learning) is that you have this smug arrogance based upon nothing. You have a severe case of Dunning-Kruger. You don’t have any real physics knowledge but think you are smarter than all the scientists out there.

If you were not as arrogant as you are you might think “Hmm, everyone is thinking like this and I am thinking like that…maybe I am wrong”

You are such a funny clown. Keep posting for the amusement of people that know science. It is like hearing science ideas from 1st graders. Normally cute with small children.

I’m waiting for Norman, Swanson, Tim, fluffball, Nate, bobdrug, and the other “plate warmers” to show how the green plates warm the blue plate. What do they believe the temperature of the blue plate would be now?

With two green plates, they must believe the temperature would be even higher than their bogus 262K, with just the one green plate. But, that won’t work!

The correct answer for you situation would have a steady state temperature for both green plates of around 244 K while the sandwiched blue plate would rise to 345 K.

It is well known working physics is you look at heat radiant shield physics. Each shield lowers the amount of heat lost by an object. If it is not heated it cools slower, if heated it will reach a higher temperature (as in your case).

You need to learn some physics and I really mean it.

Why not send you cartoon physics to an actual physics department for evaluation. Tell them you are having a hard time convincing people that this physics is valid and real. Let us know their responses to your nonsense made up funny stuff. You won’t do it will you?

Well, we’re getting some early returns in. Not all the “plate warmers” have voted yet, but already the pseudoscience is amazing.

Svante has no clue be just “believes” the blue plate will be warmer. Poor bob tries using a prism! But there appears to be some disharmony among the clowns. Bob tells us a black body must absorb everything, but Norman tells us a black body is a “heat shield”!

Then, Norman uses bogus math to support his bogus physics. He doesn’t understand that you can solve an equation, but the equation might be wrong. Norman has the blue plate at 345 K, and can’t understand why that is WRONG!

Just because you reject established science and physics equations only makes them bogus in your own mind. Primarily because you are not rational or logical and can’t grasp the concepts behind the equations.

Anyway I am correct and you are wrong. If you add more plates on the outside of each green plate you will increase the blue plate even more.

Unfortunately, since you are not rational or logical, you can’t understand an analogous situation. If you had some internal heating device for the blue plate but surrounded it with really good insulation you don’t think the blue plate will increase in temperature? The mechanism is different but the effect is identical. The green plate reduces the HEAT FLOW of the blue plate (net energy loss, the amount of energy emitted by the blue plate minus the amount the blue plate gains from the green plate). Insulation reduces the heat flow. Both reduce heat flow. Different mechanism, same overall result.

You have to make up fake physics to support your unscientific conclusions, primarily that photons from the green plate to the blue plate will be reflected. Goofy physics not supported by anything. An idea made up by Claes Johnson with zero evidence to support it. That you blindly believe it is factual indicates you are an ignorant person.

Heat shields protect structures from extreme temperatures and thermal gradients by two primary mechanisms. Thermal insulation and radiative cooling, which respectively isolate the underlying structure from high external surface temperatures, while emitting heat outwards through thermal radiation. To achieve good functionality the three attributes required of a heat shield are low thermal conductivity (high thermal resistance), high emissivity and good thermal stability (refractoriness).[1] Porous ceramics with high emissivity coatings (HECs) are often employed to address these three characteristics, owing to the good thermal stability of ceramics, the thermal insulation of porous materials and the good radiative cooling effects offered by HECs.

Insulation

Most common insulation materials work by slowing conductive heat flow and–to a lesser extent–convective heat flow. Radiant barriers and reflective insulation systems work by reducing radiant heat gain. To be effective, the reflective surface must face an air space.

Huffingman, Your two plate cartoon is just that, a fiction. You show the Blue Plate with 200 W going to the left and 400 W going to the right. As you’ve been told repeatedly, for thermal IR EM radiation, the same amount of energy must leave each side if they have equal emissivities and temperature. Drawing a couple of extra arrows in your cartoon doesn’t change the physical reality.

Yeah Swanson, when you don’t understand the relevant physics, and you can’t think for yourself, it can be confusing. That’s why the fluxes are color-coded. It’s somewhat like playing with your crayons. The blue arrows are emitted from the blue plate. The green arrows are emitted from the green plate. The green arrows from the blue plate represent flux that is reflected. Everything is accounted for.

This is what’s so funny. Radiative insulation is via reflectivity. A black-body is the perfect polar opposite of a radiative insulator. I’ve tried to make this simple point so many times. They need the BB plate to be an insulator, AND a black-body. Two completely opposing things, at the same time. Their minds must be so contorted by the cognitive dissonance. That explains the endless abusive outpourings…

YOU: “A black-body is the perfect polar opposite of a radiative insulator.”

Just because the irrational troll posts dishonest points:
“Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator”

I have never claimed a black-body is a relfector, that is what JDHuffman claims it can be. I have said it could act as a heat shield. I do NOT use the word insulator for the radiant effect.

I have stated many times the IR from the Green plate is emitted and absorbed by the blue plate. The combination of this energy will cause the blue plate to reach a higher temperature. I am not making other claims or defining it as something else.

The blackbody green plate DOES not have to be an radiative insulator. A blackbody would make the worst material for a heat shield and yet it would stop ALL the radiant IR emitted from a hot object from going through the opposite side. Hence it is a shield for the outgoing IR of a hot object. The energy that is emitted from the opposing side is the energy the green plate emits, all the blue plate IR is gone, absorbed.

I really don’t know how to clear it up. I think Svante explained your posting nature. You get into these semantic points that go on and in and ignore the underlying concepts discussed.

The green plate IR will cause the blue plate to reach a higher temperature. A second green plate will cause the blue plate to reach even a higher temperature. If you continue to add plates the heated blue plate will continue to reach higher temperatures.

Here read this it might help you. I have given up hope for the troll JDHuffman.

Note: “Therefore, when all emissivities are equal, 1 shield reduces the rate of radiation heat transfer to one-half, 9 shields reduce it to one-tenth, and 19 shields
reduce it to one-twentieth (or 5 percent) of what it was when there were no
shields”

Now if you look at the original problem this is exactly what is going on. The blue plate emits 200 w/m^2 toward the green plate, the green plate emits 100 watt/m^2 to the external world, the rate of radiation heat transfer with the green plate is reduced by a half on the side with the green plate. Just as the real and valid physics says.

Use just a little bit of logic and reasoning. If you are adding energy to an object and by adding more plates reducing how much heat the object can lose why don’t you think it will get warmer than if there were no plates? Put numbers in the equations for yourself and you will see that only JDHuffman is wrong. The rest of the posters understand real physics, he cannot. Are you going down his rabbit hole? Are you Alice?

The green arrows are emitted from the green plate. The green arrows from the blue plate represent flux that is reflected. Everything is accounted for.

, For real surfaces, the emissivity (e) represents the fraction absorbed and (1-e) equals the fraction reflected. You can’t have it both ways, unless you fabricate a selective absorber, such as that used for solar thermal collectors. For those surface treatments, the SW is absorbed but the LW is reflected.

That does not apply if both plate surfaces have high emissivities (including black bodies) in the wavelengths produced form temperatures in the Green Plate Effect. The Blue plate can’t both reflect all the Green plate’s emissions and emit anything while at nearly the same temperature.

The thoughtless one. You really do like to show your ignorance don’t you. No shame.

Mr. anti-science YOU: “The green plate MUST absorb all flux from the higher potential blue plate, if it is a black body.

It can NOT raise the temperature of the blue plate.”

Yes you are correct, the green plate absorbs all the flux from the blue plate. But now what. Does the green plate just stay cold, it is absorbing energy but not changing?

Clown, the green plate will increase in temperature as it absorbs the flux from the blue plate. As it warms it will emit greater amounts of its own IR (in fact a black-body curve of emission based solely on its temperature).

The energy from the green plate is emitted and the half that faces the blue plate is absorbed by the blue plate. It has an external source of energy input and the added input of the green plate EMR emission. It is NOT reflected. The energy adds to the internal energy of the blue plate and it reaches a higher temperature until it radiates away the same amount of energy it receives. Please learn some physics. I give you many links. Your ignorance might be bliss to you but it is annoying to others.

About the dumbest cartoon physics I have seen. Why not send it to a Department of Physics for evaluation. Any idiot can make up anything they want. Your cartoons are worthless nonsense. Learn some physics you make yourself look really ignorant.

By the way, what are your cartoons based upon, do you have any textbook material that would support your nonsense? An experiment. Nope? Didn’t think so.

bob, when you turn on an incandescent light bulb, it will get so hot it will burn your fingers, if you try to grasp it. When you turn it off, it will start cooling. You have “slowed the heat loss” from when it was at its peak. But the bulb will NOT increase in temperature.

“Slowing the heat loss” is not the same as “raising the temperature”.

Want another example?

An ice cube at 270 K emits about 300 Watts/m*2. Put the ice cube in a freezer until it is at 290 K. You have “slowed the heat loss”, but the temperature went down.

Want another example?

Put an object at 400 K into an insulated box. Measure the time it takes for the object to fall to room temperature, about 300 K. Then start over with double the insulation and the object again at 400 K. It will take longer for the object to reach 300 K, because you have “slowed the heat loss”, but the object never went above 400 K.

bob, JD’s physics are so outrageously uninformed, JD does not even realize JD’s colder object (room temperature double insulation) increased the temperature of the warmer 400K object over the object in the case with single insulation at each time increment (Law of Cooling).

That is the effect of added insulation; like E. Swanson’s experimental effect of adding the green plate where results showed an increased blue object temperature over the blue object temperature with no green plate.

JD is simply an uninformed commenter here only for entertainment purposes.

(Revisions from the clowns are permitted. It just shows they don’t have a clue, and their failed efforts just add to the humor. Note that the correct plates solution has not been revised, evah.)

Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator, but it does NOT insulate, reflect, or shield anything.

That’s a bit of improvement JD, you are learning a little, try harder your science is as yet not exactly correct. Don’t try too hard though, by actually doing an experiment for example, we wouldn’t want JD to lose all JD’s entertainment value.

Thanks for reminding me of your phony “experiments”, fluffball. Like the time you got caught trying to claim a surface at 1452 K would radiate 400 Watts/m^2. Someone told you that was wrong, but you claimed it was “from experiment”!

My ploy motivated two-time loser JD to do the S-B law calculation correctly, not as shown incorrectly in JD’s bogus cartoon.

JD really does full well know 400 W/m^2 illumination and 200 W/m^2 illumination of identical BB black objects won’t achieve same 244K equilibrium temperature as shown in JD’s bogus cartoon because JD CAN do the calculations correctly when JD is motivated to do so.

For fun, JD falsely continues to show readers the bogus cartoon: “Did you notice the ACTUAL correct answer?”

I you still have your set-up available from the experiment, that JDHuffman and his blog physics overwhelm his thought process, he can’t understand what is going on so he only can say “bogus”, maybe you could show this blog how incredibly ignorant JDHuffman really is.

Heat the blue plate with some internal heater coil and then have two plates brought up on each side. I know it would not do JDHuffman any good. He is a solid clown. It might be more work than you want to do.

If JDHuffman would put money on it, it might be worth it to you.

How about JDHuffman pay E. Swanson $1000 if he sets up an experiment in a vacuum with a blue plate and two green plates on each side to see the blue plate increases. First move one green plate to position and wait for steady temperature and then move the next green plate up.

The stipulation to the payment is JDHuffman only pays if the blue plate gets warmer with the second green plate in place.

Norman, Sorry, I can’t do that. I would need to fabricate new plates, since the ones I have are initially held together with pop rivets which make it impossible to put them together. Also, I would need a new mechanism to move them the way you want. Besides, my back woods rig couldn’t achieve a really strong vacuum, as would be desirable. I’ve taken it apart to try some ideas with a heated plate in the freezer and an ice sheet…

Anyway, I’ve about had it with these clowns. They clearly have an agenda and aren’t interested in physics.

The best thing is to ignore an ignorant troll like you. I do try to but when I reply to rational skeptics with interesting points, I go back to see how the flow of thought goes and you have to inject your troll comments until I play with you.

I play with you a while, it means nothing goes nowhere, I can pull up posts from the past and they are the same.

I really wish you would never respond to any of my posts. That is a dream I will not enjoy. There is nothing you say that interests me in the least. Sometimes I hope for DREMT. You are a worthless blog troll only interested in provoking responses with insulting taunts.

Your pretend knowledge of physics is pathetic. You are about as smart as the noodle heads that post on Joseph Postma site. None have the slightest idea of physics but they post like they all have PhD’s and are smarter than the entire body of scientists. You belong with those clowns.

Nate, for reference, here’s the latest diagram, with two green plates. It’s the funniest one, since you clowns must believe the blue plate will shoot up to 345 K, after slightly separating the green plates.

Both green plates receive 200 Watts from the blue plate, and emit 200 Watts out. They transfer NO energy back to the blue plate, as indicated by the two opposing arrows. (If you had been paying attention to the discussion, you would know the term for the two opposing arrows.) There are no violations of any laws.

You are confused by the energy flow from blue to green. You believe there cannot be energy flow because the plates are at the same temperature. You just don’t understand the relevant physics.

Here, the plate temperatures are NOT establishing energy flow. You are confusing radiative heat transfer and conductive heat transfer. In this situation, the energy flow establishes the temperatures. The blue plate MUST emit 200 Watts in both directions. But, since the green plates can NOT send energy back to the blue plate, they must rise in temperature to the point they can radiate 200 Watts.

And again, if you had been paying attention, you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus. As in this case you clowns end up with ridiculous results, like causing the blue plate to rise in temperature over 180 °F (over 100 °C), just by a 1 mm separation!

‘They transfer NO energy back to the blue plate, as indicated by the two opposing arrows. (If you had been paying attention to the discussion, you would know the term for the two opposing arrows.) There are no violations of any laws.’

Kirchoffs law says an excellent emitter like the blue plate, cannot be an excellent (or even good) reflector. You are somehow exempt from this law? Nope.

“Here, the plate temperatures are NOT establishing energy flow. In this situation, the energy flow establishes the temperatures. ”

Gobbldegook does not let you violate Radiative Heat Transfer Law and Second Law. There is no mechanism other than radiant heat at work here.

“The blue plate MUST emit 200 Watts in both directions. But, since the green plates can NOT send energy back to the blue plate, they must rise in temperature to the point they can radiate 200 Watts.”

Doubling down on Kirchoff Law violation.

“you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.”

Physics! We don’t understand physics! You constantly spout such things.

Yet here you are tossing out a perfectly valid Law of Physics. Again, inexplicably, you are exempt.

JD, we need you to clarify “your physics” since it seems to differe from everyone else’s physics.

Google “radiative heat transfer” and look at the equations.
Open any textbook on radiative heat transfer and look at the equations.

In every case, you will find that for radiation from a hot blackbody object with a temperature Th and an area A to cool blackbody surroundings with a temperature Tc, the power of the net transfer is always given as

P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A

Do you agree with this universally accepted equation? Or do you have some other equation that you use?

Hilarious!! You blatantly reject established physics and an equation that is used all the time in heat transfer engineering. Let you in on a secret JDHuffman, the equation works it is valid.

Man you are funny. The funny thing might be that you actually believe you studied physics somewhere, you think you know what you are talking about related to science. You argue with Tim Folkerts who has forgotten more physics than you have ever learned.

Here is a link from heat transfer equations used by actual engineers who design heat transfer items (something we are all glad you never were, you would be fired day one for total incompetence).

Look at the equations used in the radiant heat transfer section. Boy you are one ignorant poster. Most would not continue after being wrong so many times on so many things. You are not smart enough to see how ignorant your ideas are.

YOU: “No Norman, you get it wrong, again. I reject pseudoscience, not established physics.”

Your established physics come from deranged lunatics like Joseph Postma, crackpots like Claes Johnson. All pseudoscience! Your clown cartoon is complete pseudoscience. You don’t even try to support it with any evidence. All fabrications you made up.

When you get good established textbook physics you reject it all.

The equation Tim Folkerts posted is the established radiant heat transfer equation. What did you say about it? Oh you forgot already?

Here: “Tim, that equation is invalid. It assumes all flux is always absorbed.”

It is correct for a blackbody which we are debating in your example. Lord you hate physics with a complete passion.

Have you sent your brilliant idea of No Moon Rotation to a University Astronomy Department for evaluation?

Have you sent your stupid cartoon physics to a University Physics Department for evaluation?

No you haven’t. You hate physics so much you want to remain in the dark. Such sources would show you how ignorant you really are. You can’t have that can you. Much better to pretend to be this genius. Sorry you are not the next genius to be discovered. You need to have rational and logical thought to qualify.

Poor Norman. His made up world just doesn’t jive with reality. He can’t even get the other clowns to agree on the definition of a hypothetical black body. His rambling, derogatory comments just make hiim look desperate.

Certainly that equation is an idealization because it assumes perfect absor.ption and emission. In the same way that frictionless surfaces are an idealization.

These are simplifications for beginners. For real surfaces, we can introduce real emissivities. We can introduce view factors. These are minor corrections on the equations.

The point is that all scientists agree that the equation I presented works for the idealized case. And they agree that a slightly modified version will work for non-ideal cases.

So we are left with one of two choices:
* all scientists are wrong, and engineers are completely lost when they are calculating heat flows for actual factories and space craft and power plants. Not just a few percent off because of idealizations or simplifications or rounding off, but not even in the right ballpark. (And engineers who are not even in the right ballpark are fired, so there would be no engineers hired to calculate temperatures anywhere).
* JD is wrong.

Yes Engineers use real-world physics. They do not use your made up nonsense. I gave you a link to real world physics. Why not learn it and quit being a disgrace to the Climate Skeptic community. There are many good posters here that understand the correct physics yet doubt the dire claims of the alarmists. Your made up physics and endless debates are not aiding the cause of skeptics. People believing you are a valid skeptics (not the troll that you really are) might start associating your horrible physics with the skeptic movement.

“Eli has not said anything about how the heat is being transferred, radiation, convection or conduction but since heat transfer, no matter the mechanism, is always proportional to temperature, the temperature of the blue plate must increase as more plates are added.”

Just add more plates each side of the sandwich! We’ve got 345 K just by having 2 plates, 1 each side. I wonder what they think the temperature of the blue plate would be, if they had 10 plates each side?

Adding the second green plate was their “Waterloo”. It showed that they have to redefine a black body, to fit their pseudoscience.

You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming, then the outgoing flux would have to be 40,000 Watts/m^2. And that would mean that the blue plate would have to have a temperature of 916.5 K.

So, they need the green plate to be some type of specialized insulator, but keep the blue plate a black body.

JD, you keep tell us to “learn some physics”. Yet, when we ask for more details, for more information, you evade.

P = (sigma)(Th^4 – Tc^4)A *is* the basic physics. This is the introduction in every textbook and every thermodynamics course. Often this is used as the springboard to more advanced equations for more general cases — but always those equations reduce back to (sigma)(Th^4 – Tc^4)A for simple blackbodies radiating to a uniform environment.

If you think you know some other physics, then point us too a reputable source. If you think “blackbody” means something other than “perfectly emits and absorbs EM radiation at all (applicable) frequencies, show us a book that agrees with you. Show us an equation for calculating which wavelengths are not absorbed.

Tim, again, this has already been discussed. That equation is bogus. It is NOT “the introduction in every textbook and every thermodynamics course.” You are imagining things.

Why don’t you just come out and admit you don’t believe in the 2LoT? Some other clowns are doing that. Why try to keep denying 2LoT, yet not admitting to it? Look at Norman’s comments, and bobdrug’s. They no longer fake any interest in truth or reality. You should join them.

I guess we can now make our own call about whom to trust to teach us physics.
* Do we trust some random dude in the internet who appeals to his own authority?
* Or do we trust every university teaching thermodynamics (across multiple continents; in both physics and engineering)?

Tim, I see you are still having trouble with that bogus equation. Just because it is used in teaching examples, does not mean it has applications in the real world. As you’ve seen here, it can lead people down the wrong path.

You may be confused because ΔT is important in CONDUCTIVE heat transfer, but does not carry over to radiative heat transfer. When a surface emits a photon, it does not consider where the photon will end up, AT ALL.

I was trying to figure out how much you actually know and give you the opportunity to admit you made a mistake.

Lets parse this statement of yours

“You can raise the temperature of the blue plate with insulation. For example if you insulated both sides, so that only a total of 0.01 sq. meter was allowed to radiate the 400 Watts incoming, then the outgoing flux would have to be 40,000 Watts/m^2. ”

You made a couple mistakes

One, according to the green plate effect, it’s 400 w/m^2, so if you reduced the area to 0.01 sq. meter, the outgoing flux would be 4 watts, not 40,000 and it would still be 400 w/m^2.

Second, insulation doesn’t work by reducing the area, it works by reducing the flux, that’s why I asked you to explain how insulation works.

Apparently you don’t know so you project that lack of understanding on me.

“You would have to compress an object by a factor of 100 to do that. How?”

No bob, you would not have to compress the object. You could restrict the effective emitting surface area by using a suitable radiative insulator, as you attempted upthread by wrapping the light bulb in foil.

‘If you think blackbody means something other than perfectly emits and absorbs EM radiation at all (applicable) frequencies, show us a book that agrees with you. Show us an equation for calculating which wavelengths are not absorbed.’

Tim, Norman, me:

I have made similar requests many times. He is never able to offer any source. He simply ignores facts and logic.

JD has no desire to honestly debate or be taken seriously. His goal is simply to troll.

I suggest that unless he changes his ways, we need to stop responding to him and thus feeding the troll.

I concur with your suggestion, anonymous Nate. Stop with your nonsense. If you don’t understand the physics, it is not my fault. It is not my job to teach you, especially if you are not able to pose a responsible question, in a timely manner, so I don’t have to accidently run upon your comment when I’m looking for something else.

“Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
November 29, 2018 at 1:02 PM
To find ‘the rate of heat flow from the sun to the blue plate, and the rate of heat flow out from the blue plate and the green plate’ you need to use the radiative heat transfer equation between the sun and the blue plate, and between the plates (your Q12), and your Q23.”

New DREMT: JD has “debunked the Green Plate Effect.”

Here’s JD ‘debunking’ his solution of GPE:

JD “if you had been paying attention, you would know that the radiative heat transfer equation is bogus.”

Nate, the debunk involves having a blue plate powered by an electrical source, and adding an additional green plate to the left of the blue (plus additional green plates as necessary). It’s an extension of the GPE logic, designed to show the absurdity of the conclusion. Reductio ad absurdum. Try to keep on topic. Currently, the topic is:

Play in traffic? There’s no need to wish harm on someone just because they’ve debunked the Green Plate Effect.

The “plate-warmer” clowns determined that adding a second green plate would raise the blue plate temperature to 345 K. If all three plates start out together, all three would have an equilibrium temperature of 244 K. So the clowns claim that slightly separating the plates causes the middle (blue) plate to rise to 345 K!

Now NONE of the clowns understand the relevant physics. In fact, most don’t even understand their own pseudoscience. I have to explain it to them often. But, it gets worse. They are unable to think for themselves. This is another perfect example.

244 K corresponds to -29 °C, -20.5 °F. 345 K corresponds to 72 °C, 161 °F. These are pretty extreme temperature changes, just from slightly separating the plates. People that can think for themselves would realize that there is something wrong. But not our clowns.

It doesn’t make any difference really. When the heat lamp is turned off, all the different coloured plates become the same temperature.

Just like the Earth’s surface after sunset. The plates all lose their colour as well. No heat trapping at all.

Much ado about not much at all. I suppose the idea was to show that CO2 can make the Earth hotter from year to year (as in “Hottest year EVAH!”, but this is just lunatic nonsense, espoused by deluded nutters!

Some of the nutters even agree that the Earth has cooled, but claim that because it is now cooling very, very, slowly, that really means it is getting hotter!

The spontaneous temperature rise and fall of the plates through separation and pushing them back together is the now infamous “Accordion of Pseudoscience”. Even Eli had to draw the line at that, as we saw in his more recent GPE article.

With 3 plates, we now have the “Pseudoscience Sandwich”. Just over 100 K of temperature increase simply by adding two plates with zero insulative properties either side of a powered object.

There has to be a limit to what they can swallow, or expect others to, surely!?

They always get themselves wrapped up in their own web. They can’t decide how to define a black body, to fit their pseudoscience. Is it a perfect absorber, or a reflector, or a heat shield, or an insulator, or a banana?

No real objects provide zero insulation, because no real objects are perfect conductors, with zero reflectivity. Unlike the unreal black-body plates in the thought experiment, two of which you claim would increase the temperature of the powered blue plate by 101 K.

We can all think fine. You are the one lacking in rational logical skills.

You don’t have enough knowledge of heat transfer to grasp that when together they have a heat exchange mechanism called conduction. If you could think for yourself you would realize there is much difference between plates that are in contact vs plates that are not. Since you lack logical thought process you come to the absurd conclusion that plate separation has no effect.

Why not do an actual experiment. You will see the heated blue plate does get much hotter and the others cool off.

The G/B plate nonsense was started by Eli Rabbet, who has a degree in physics and teaches chemistry. I can see why.

He co-authored a paper as a rebuttal against Gerlich and Tscheuschner, two experts in thermodynamics who have debunked AGW and the GHE. They argued, in part, that real greenhouses do not warm by trapping IR, as CO2 is claimed to do, but that the greenhouses warm because they trap warmed air molecules with the glass. Further, there is little or no convection to carry the heat off.

As part of the rebuttal, there were two, Rabbett (Halpern) used the same silly arguments as in the green plate / blue plate thought experiment. When G&T claimed a heat transfer from hot to cold only was permitted, Halpern et al argued that would mean one body was not radiating.

Doh!!!

In their rebuttal, G&T had to point out the obvious, that the 2nd law applies to heat and not radiation (EM). They claimed only quantities of heat can be summed and that summing IR does not qualify in determining the direction of heat transfer outlines by the 2nd law.

Where this silliness came from, I don’t understand. Certain modernists have altered the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to make it allegedly satisfy the 2nd law by introducing a pseudo-scientific notion of a net balance of energy.

We are not talking about energy per se in a generic form, we are talking about two different energies, EM and heat, which have diametrically-opposed properties. Furthermore, Rabbett et al are confusing black-body theory with real world applications, which do not coincide.

Gordo, No, we aren’t talking about “energy per se in a generic form”. We are talking about the effects of radiation shield(s) on a heated body’s temperature. In you referenced paper by G&T, they simply assert that the CO2/Greenhouse Effect on temperature can not be an increase because that would violate the 2nd Law without any analysis of the energy flow. They didn’t address the parallel case of radiation shielding of heated solid bodies, which is standard engineering practice.

Swa,, You apparently understand this stuff. Of course there is a GHE and your experiment demonstrated it. The deeper understanding comes from discovering why, in spite of being a ghg, CO2 has little if any effect on climate and water vapor, also a ghg but inherently self-limiting, does. It is explained at http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com or click my name for the whole story.

DP, Sorry to say, I can’t be considered an expert on the intricate details. I’ve not worked with MODTRAN, so what follows may not be correct.

That said, I think you should also consider that the water vapor absorp_tion is also thermalized, which puts a kink in your suggestion that there’s one way a transfer from the CO2 molecules to the WV molecules. Also, the emissions from any molecular constituent happens in random directions, which works out to half leaving a layer in the upward direction and the other half moving downward.

Furthermore, above the tropopause, there’s almost no WV, so the emission-absorp_tion reverts to the CO2 in a column. The lower level shown for CO2 in your graphs may be the result of the net outward flux from elevations above the tropopause, which occurs at a lower emission temperature, thus the apparent “dip” in your graphs.

Should you wish to dig deeper, try Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, which gives the intricate details. I have a copy of the 1989 edition which I need to study, but I get lost in the math. Just skimming it so far, I’ve picked up lots more understanding of the physics.

ES,, I am fully aware that the energy absorbed by WV is thermalized, in fact, the energy is thermalized in ALL molecules that absorb photons. The energy is distributed/shared by thermal conduction in the surrounding molecules in the gas. The process of absorbing and emitting is continuous throughout the atmosphere. Absorbing tends to increase the temperature of the gas and emitting tends to lower it. Although individual molecules emit in random direction, the steep population gradient of WV molecules, progressively with altitude, favors radiation from them getting all the way to space. The population gradient in WV molecules goes from an average of about 1000 ppm at surface to about 32 ppm at 10 km. The population decline accompanies the temperature decline to about -50 C at 10 km.

The concept of one-way transfer is misleading and I will try to improve the wording to avoid any appearance that I am suggesting it. Emission in the range wavenumber 600-750/cm can be absorbed by CO2 keeping CO2 molecules participating below 10 km. Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules and, because of their population gradient, much of it, eventually all of it, gets all the way to space. The result of all this is the NET flow of absorbed energy in the wn range 600-750/cm is absorbed by CO2, shared with all the surrounding molecules, a lot of the emission from WV molecules, eventually nearly all, makes it to space. The notch demonstrates the NET flow of energy.

If you look closely in Fig 2 notice that the notch is deeper at 20 km than it is at 50 km. This corroborates CO2 dominance above the tropopause. The NET flow of energy above the tropopause favors CO2 because, at this high altitude, CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecule about 410 to 32.

Thanks for suggesting the book. I would be cautious about any text that far back, a lot of this stuff had not been sorted out yet. Avoid allowing the physicists to get you mired in the minutia.

“the energy is thermalized in ALL molecules… emitting is continuous throughout the atmosphere.”

These statements are inconsistent Dan. If all the excited molecules are de-energized by collision (thermalized), then there are no excited molecules left to emit (de-energized by photon emission). A better statement is some molecular absorbed energy is thermalized and some emitted.

“Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules”

All atm. molecules absorb/emit in the range wn 50-600/cm, the only difference is the measure of luminous intensity of each species.

“Thanks for suggesting the book. I would be cautious about any text that far back, a lot of this stuff had not been sorted out yet. Avoid allowing the physicists to get you mired in the minutia.”

More recent texts are Bohren 1998 (atm. thermo.) and Bohren 2006 (atm. radiation). In spectroscopy, the detail minutia IS where the important stuff is learned. Bohren 2006 cites Goody & Yung with admiration by the way.

DP, Things become complicated when one considers the tropopause because of the vertical circulation process.

As I understand things, warm, moist low density air is lifted in the atmosphere by the hydrostatic pressure from the surrounding cooler, densier air, moving upward where it cools, eventually cooling to the point that the vapor begins to condense into clouds. While condensing, the heat released warms the air mass, which promotes further upward motion. Further condensation may result in ice particles or snow. Both effects result in a cloud layer, thru which IR EM will not be transmitted. Above the cloud layer and the tropopause, there’s little water vapor to emit IR EM.

The now cooled air mass will sink back toward the surface, which results in dry, low water vapor areas which will emit little IR EM in the WV bands while allowing IR EM from the surface to go directly to space via the atmospheric window. In those instances my presumption is that the CO2 column absorp_tion/emission would provide a larger fractional component than in the moist air situation. I’m sure that the math to sort all this out becomes quite messy, which must be done using models.

“So if the 3 plates are together, they all are at 244 K, at equilibrium.”

Given the initial Eli conditions view factor 1, that is ONE plate at 244K equilibrium. Add a plate for two plates, the blue plate goes to 262K equilibrium. Directionally same as confirmed by experiment. From where did JD get the 3plate 345K?

“As I understand things, warm, moist low density air is lifted in the atmosphere by the hydrostatic pressure from the surrounding cooler, densier air, moving upward where it cools, eventually cooling to the point that the vapor begins to condense into clouds.”

Not all the time, actually observed not most of the time. Convective available PE (CAPE) determines the initial lifting velocity of the air warmed above ambient; when it rises to equilibrate with ambient the rise stops and diffuses laterally in a mostly hydrostatic atm.

If not enough CAPE to get to saturation, doesn’t form a cloud. A lot of CAPE (which is unusual, summer storms are an exception) means momentum can get the rising air to burst through the tropopause and cauliflower out into stratosphere.

Blog readership knows you are calling the 345K calculation bogus when you haven’t even seen the calculation, typical in that JD just makes up stuff. Or show the bogus 345K calculation if you are right and are not just an entertainment specialist.

I’ll leave the pseudoscience & bogus cartoons to JD where JD shows NO experiments. JD can’t even show the 345K calculation JD calls bogus. A three ring JD circus. Great entertainment JD, and it’s free! More please.

ES,, I discuss vertical circulation at the end of Section 4 in my blog/analysis (click my name) and understand it apparently the same as you. Remember, clouds exist all the way from fog at the surface to cirrus and my assessment smears all this into a global average. The radiation stuff is in parallel. Working with global averages is comparatively simple and that is all I do. In the process, I have identified what is important as demonstrated by a 98+ % match with measured 1895-2018. The GCMs will not get better until they stop blaming CO2, input measured WV, and account for ocean oscillation.

Bal,, It appears we are not on the same page with understanding of thermalization. Thermalization is the process of absorbing radiation and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. The collisions are all elastic so there is no net energy loss. The energy of the molecule that absorbed the photon is shared so its energy drops down becoming part of the average for the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution which is exhibited as the temperature of the gas. This all happens as the molecules bounce off each other with the average time between impacts for a molecule being less than 0.0002 microseconds at stp. The average time between absorbing and emitting a photon is about 5 microseconds so the chance of emitting a photon before another molecule is contacted is zilch. All absorbed, thermalized energy is eventually emitted.

As to the difference in luminous intensity, I became aware of that working with Hitran. IMO the species participating several orders of magnitude below the significant energy involved with ghg can be ignored with negligible error in understanding climate.

The plate problem, as defined without edge issues, is trivial. Eli got the correct answer in spite of his mistakes because they perfectly compensated. In his 2018 update, the first equation with two plates should be a equals 2bprime minus c for plate 1.

The air molecules excited one level above their base quantum level cannot both emit a photon and thermalize that energy by collision back to base level. All atm. molecular energy one level above the quantum base level is eventually emitted OR thermalized by collision. Not both.

“IMO the species participating several orders of magnitude below the significant energy involved with ghg can be ignored with negligible error in understanding climate.”

O2 and N2 are in such high quantity they are observed emitting in the spectroscopy through the entire depth of earth atm. Also, “can be ignored” is different, more accurate statement for some species, than the statement “Realize emission in the range wn 50-600/cm can only be absorbed by other WV molecules”.

In my view, it is true that added CO2 ppm is not a significant contributor as you write. The issue is over what is meant by “significant” earthian added sky radiation at the surface & the time period.

Some might call CO2 added ppm delta ~0.7C in global median T observed over ~75 years significant. Others, including Dan, might call .009C/year not a significant contributor to GW. It is really hard to see .009C each year/year in the top post graph. There are both advantages and disadvantages to added sky radiation & CO2 that are rarely summed.

To me, anyone writing .009C monotonic increase this year 2019 over last 2018 on global median temperature being solely responsible for any sort of a so called “heat wave” or major storm damage is a bit of an exaggeration. The low all-time temperature in Illinois was ~.009C higher than what it would have been had it happened last year.

I’m mainly in this wild west discussion to be able to form my own more informed data-based opinions on what the general news media publishes on the subject of GW. Oh, and the humorous entertainment provided by some blog commenters is worth the effort.

AS I understand it, those “notches” to which you refer are the narrow absorp_tion “bands” at specific wavelengths for the various species of greenhouse gases. That’s the way it is described by Goody and Yung. I think Craig Bohren agrees with that interpretaton. The earlier spectroscopic work which showed wide “bands” because the resolution of the instruments couldn’t resolve the narrow bands and the effects of pressure broadening added to the width at surface pressures.

I read most of your long post and came away a bit confused. I would need to read it again but I think you should remember that your graphs of MODTRAN results are mostly for clear sky conditions. What happens above clouds would seem to be different, given that clouds would tend to emit a nearly continuous spectrum similar to water. As you note, there’s almost no WV above the tropopause (you use 10km as your reference). Above the clouds, CO2 becomes a much larger fraction of the GHG emissions.

Another thing which bothered me was your computation for human caused emissions of WV. I didn’t notice a comparison with the amount WV provided by from natural cycles, especially as the Earth is roughly 72% covered with H2O. Also, as I recall, irrigated agriculture has been around for quite a while, especially for farming rice. The aboriginals in pre-Colombian Central America also took advantage of irrigation.

BTW, Goody and Yung, Atmospheric Radiation: Theoretical Basis, 2nd ed. was reprinted in 1995, at least, that’s what I think happened, since the newer release is still a “2nd edition”. It’s still available as a paperback at your favorite mega national book seller.

tim…”In every case, you will find that for radiation from a hot blackbody object with a temperature Th and an area A to cool blackbody surroundings with a temperature Tc, the power of the net transfer is always given as

P = (sigma) (Th^4 Tc^4) A ”

Wrong!!!

This is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which determines the radiation for a body of temperature Th to its environment Tc. IT IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OF NET TRANSFER, WHATEVER THAT MEANS.

S-B describes a one way process in which heat is dissipated in a hot body as it radiates to a cooler environment. It’s a one way process.

Stefan’s initial equation had no Tc factor in it. He was caluclating the radiation from a hot body only. It was Boltzmann who later added the Tc factor.

The data used by Stefan initially came from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically till it glowed. As he increased the current, the wire glowed different colours. Someone else calculated the theoretical temperatures corresponding to each colour level from which Stefan deduced a T^4 relationship between the temperature of the body and the emitted radiation.

That does not describe a net heat transfer nor does it describe a net EM transfer. It is simply a measure of the radiation density itself.

Some modernists have incorrectly added to the S-B equation to theorize a two way transfer between bodies.

[I thought I had replied earlier, but it didn’t seem to come through. ]

Gordon, lets skip the semantics (“photons flying both ways” vs “thermal IR” vs “heat” vs “EM radiation”) for a moment and see if we can agree on numbers. After all, that is the ultimate goal — to be able to calculate how the universe works.

It seems we can agree that the equation P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A “determines the radiation for a body of temperature Th to its environment Tc.” I bet we can agree on these two applications.

2) A flat panel with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“a body) radiating to a nearby flat panel with A = 1 m^2, T = 300 K, emissivity = 1 (“its environment”) will result in
P = (sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) A = 0 W
going from the the first panel to the second (ie there is no power transfer at all).

I have never figured out this objection, Kristian. In the same paragraph you say:

“The cooler plate does NOT (!!!) emit 100 W/m^2 toward the warmer plate”
and
“you will see individual photons moving … from the cooler plate to the warmer.”

If the cooler surface emits 10^22 photons per second per m^2 and each has an average energy of 1e-20 J (ie an average wavelength of about 20 um), then it emits 100 W/m^2. It does BOTH! Simultaneously.

I understand that it can be *convenient* to focus on either photons or on net EM radiation; to focus on either microscopic or macroscopic. I understand that some people might be confused if they don’t already understand both perspectives. But simply shifting focus does not negate the existence of the other perspective.

I always try to make this point absolutely clear, Tim, when making this specific objection to something you’ve written. Strange how you seem to miss it every single time.

It’s all about keeping notions and ideas (about how things really work and how specific effects come to be) straight, in order to avoid confusion on matters such as physical mechanisms and cause and effect.

When people like you state that a cold object emits a separate power density flux to a hot object, and the hot object ends up even hotter as a result, it – most likely unintentionally – comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry) as if what you’re effectively saying is that the cold object is an independent energy source to the hot object, just like any other HEAT source.

But the cold object does NOT act as a heat source to the hotter object. The mechanism by which it forces the hot object to become hotter still is a DIFFERENT one.

By using this kind og imprecise language, you’re perpetuating the myth that the atmosphere somehow makes the surface warmer by ADDING EXTRA ENERGY to it, which is exactly what the Sun is doing, that is: as a heat source, heating it.

So you’re not saying the atmosphere heats the surface some more, and you don’t mean to either, I’m sure. But the WAY in which you describe the process makes OTHER people think that’s what you’re saying; it ends up being, whether you like it or not, the message you convey to most people.

You are one arrogant poster. You claim “comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry)!

So you studied and worked in geology. Big deal. Do you have extensive experience working and designing heat flow equipment.

Your superior attitude to others is not warranted.

Tim Folkerts nor textbooks confuse me at all. Each object is a separate emitter of IR if it has some temperature. That is the established physics. There is no one unique flow of energy that moves in just one direction. I have asked you to support you claim.

I accept what Ball4 says about you. You are dealing with the caloric, the fluid that transfer heat in a flow from hot to cold. That idea is no longer accepted.

Here arrogant one.

“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”

You are the confused one, you are trying to bring back the caloric theory. Sorry better luck with the less informed.

Again I challenge you to bring up any textbook on heat transfer that supports your notions. You won’t but you act like this genius that knows it all. You are just a blow-hard similar to the other skeptics thinking they know more than they do!

You perceive Kristian as arrogant while I see him as THE voice of reason in this semantic, childish, he-said-she-said display of personal opinions on heat transfer between objects. Everyone should go watch “The God’s Must be Crazy” movies and realize how we see the same things differently based on our life experience and world views.

Kristian is simply pointing out that regardless of what is happening at the molecular and particle level, on any observable or measurable level, no heat ever gets transferred from cold to hot. Are there any textbooks or experiments that show otherwise?

Leonard B. Loeb, 1961: The Kinetic Theory of Gases, Dover, Ch. IV (pp. 1308) and James Jeans, 1982: An Introduction to the Kinetic Theory of Gases, Ch. IV (pp. 12430) discuss some of the early experimental veriﬁcations of the M-B distribution.

Deriving it by detailed consideration of molecular energy exchanges by collisions was not trivial or it would have been done earlier. Plausible arguments (not rigorous derivation) for the distribution of molecular speeds (from which follows that for energies) follows from temperature being an average.

No, I just used that ploy to motivate you to show you CAN do the S-B calculations right instead of the wrong way you do them in your bogus cartoon. It worked, you demonstrated you know your cartoon is bogus.

My response to Kristian is because he chose to claim comes across to less educated people (such as Norman and barry)!”

That is an offensive comment and not at all correct.

I have never disagreed with anyone saying HEAT (net energy transfer) transfers from cold to hot.

My point is the same for years now. A cold body radiates its own energy toward the hot object. The hotter the cold body the more energy it radiates. The hot object will absorb the energy it can from the cold object (based upon the molecular structures). The point is that the hotter the cold temperature is the hotter will be the temperature of a HEATED body.

Adding any GHG to the atmosphere from a zero amount will increase the atmosphere emissivity. With no GHG present the surface radiates directly to space. With GHG the atmosphere will radiate energy back to the surface. The more GHG present the higher the emissivity and the more IR that is radiated back to the surface. Or in the enhanced GHE the more GHG added the higher in the atmosphere you must go to emit to space so you start emitting from colder regions radiating less energy keeping all the layers below warmer.

To Kristian, you appear less educated. Maybe, maybe not. No amount of education makes you right and Kristian wrong.

To me, you appear to have swallowed–hook, line, and sinker–the simplistic and so far unsubstantiated view that increasing CO2 will raise global temperature. Have you any proof of that? Otherwise you are just imagining that the things you describe about IR active gases actually occur.

Many times I have asked Kristian to support his claims. He only self supports linking to his own blog and his cartoon physics. That is NOT support. I have given several links to actual textbooks with links and pages to support what I think is correct.

About swallowing AGW is not correct. I have lots of uncertainty over the entire Climate Change debate. I sent you an article on an older thread where the authors did not see much impact from CO2.

The GHE is not an imagined concept. It is proven by an Earth’s surface that is much warmer than it would be without GHG. You have the Moon and Earth to compare.

I have linked you to measured values of the DWIR.

Not sure what you are actually asking for. I have supplied you with actual empirical data in the past. What is the point of continuing research efforts if you will ignore the past?

Many times I have asked Kristian to support his claims. He only self supports linking to his own blog and his cartoon physics. That is NOT support.

It annoys me that you keep lying about this, Norman. You LIE, and you know it.

In the past I have linked to multiple sources explaining how radiation really works, how radiative transfer is ultimately a matter of statistical (probabilistic) averages, and how the two-way transfer model is only a (useful; clever, even) mathematical formalism. You have invariably failed to acknowledge (or comprehend) those sources and what they say. And so rather ignore them. I have even reminded you on several occasions, like I do now, that I have indeed linked to standard physics (text and figures) to ‘support my claims’. Yet you keep coming back to your LIE that I only ever link to my own blog.

This is why I ignore you, you ignorant clown. You and your stubborn stupidity. (Your constant lying about me, however, I can only ignore for so long.)

It is proven by an Earth’s surface that is much warmer than it would be without GHG.

No. That’s the ATMOSPHERE. Earth’s surface is much warmer than it would be without an ATMOSPHERE.

Haven’t we been through this a million times? Yes, the atmosphere needs to be radiatively active for the thermal effect to take hold. And it is. All atmospheres that we know of are. But it’s not the IR activity that’s the CAUSE of the surface warming. You know what else all atmospheres are? Warmer than space. And that is NOT because they’re radiatively active. In fact, they’re warmer in spite of being radiatively active.

See my discussions on this with Tim Folkerts. Because I’m not having this discussion with you, again …

YOU: “It annoys me that you keep lying about this, Norman. You LIE, and you know it.

In the past I have linked to multiple sources explaining how radiation really works, how radiative transfer is ultimately a matter of statistical (probabilistic) averages, and how the two-way transfer model is only a (useful; clever, even) mathematical formalism.”

No you really have not done anything of this sort at all! You mainly post to your own blog and a cartoon drawing you have with lines coming off of spheres. You linked once to a web page on photon gas, which had NOTHING at all to do with heat transfer.

I have not seen any textbook on heat transfer support any of your ideas that there is only a one way flow of EMR, I have seen only the opposite view. Not one ever indicates the two-way flow of energy is a mathematical formalism and you have NEVER linked to a textbook that makes such a claim. I have linked you to more than one textbook. I really don’t care if you are done with me. I only respond when you put your snide remarks in your posts. I really am not interested in the physics you peddle here. I will get mine from valid sources like science textbooks.

Page 588
“In heat transfer by radiation, energy is not only transported from hot to cold bodies; the colder body also emits radiation that strikes the warmer body and can be absorbed there. An exchange of energy takes place, in contrast to the transfer that occurs in heat conduction and convection.”

The Earth/moon comparison is no proof of a GHE, because the moon has no substantial atmosphere let alone IR absorbing gases. Earth would be warmer with an atmosphere than without, wouldn’t you agree? Of course, adding IR gases changes the dynamics considerably. But the warmer than it would be has not been measured, just assumed. What you need to prove is what effect of additional CO2 is. That’s what I’ve been asking for from the beginning.

By the way, how is DWIR actually being measured? I think the answer is crucial the whole blue/green plate questions.

I am not sure the surface would be much warmer with a pure nitrogen atmosphere over no atmosphere. There would be only an insignificant amount of IR returning to the surface to replace the energy lost via the direct IR emission to space over the entire spectrum.

YOU: “What you need to prove is what effect of additional CO2 is. Thats what Ive been asking for from the beginning.”

Could not do that, and I don’t think anyone can. That is why there is still a debate that has been going on decades. The model projections seem to be all over the place so the models are not usable. One just has to keep observing. Working to eliminate all other sources of global temperature increase and try to isolate how much might be do to CO2 addition. I believe that is what Roy Spencer asks for. How much warming is natural and how much is man-made?

On the DWIR devices. What I have read is they have a material inside sensitive to small temperature changes. The changes are converted to electrical signals for conversion to readout. The devices are calibrated with knows standards of IR emitting sources in labs before sent to the field. The work like a balance would. You have an unknown weight you want to measure so you put know weight on one side until it balances. If the IR source emits less IR than the calibrated standard you get opposite voltage and the amount less the higher the opposite voltage. If the source emits more IR than the calibrated standard than you have the other voltage.

I did not specify if the voltage is positive or negative for higher or lower IR source than calibrated standard since I was not sure but they work similar to a balance. They are taking in IR from the atmosphere and comparing it to known IR and converting it to a measured IR value that they post.

To your credit, you seem to be in search of the truth…sometimes. Yet you challenge other commenters as if you helped write the textbooks on radiative heat transfer. Kristian is giving an extremely reasonable description of what might be happening at the molecular level while keeping in perspective the obvious macro level where heat is only transferred from hot to cold. Ok, so that is my pet peeve over your disagreements with him.

My interest is not in proving you right or wrong, but maybe in hoping you will be more interested in getting deeper into exactly what is happening at the molecular level. That is my goal. Few will be convinced by the force of our vacuous assertions. OK, enough of my philosophical soap boxing.

“I am not sure the surface would be much warmer with a pure nitrogen atmosphere over no atmosphere.”

Why not? Where would the heat accumulated by conduction and convection go? There would be less DWIR, but there would also be less TOA UWIR. Try imagining what the daily temperature profiles would be in a pure nitrogen atmosphere.

Not being skilled in the mechanics of IR detection, I will not be able to agree or correct your interpretation of how DWIR is measured. However, it seems reasonable that an IR detector is calibrated at known wavelengths, with known temperatures of standard objects. What standard objects? Black bodies? Gases of known composition? What temperatures is the detector measuring when it is pointed to space? What equations are used to convert the “temperature” measurement (where?) to an energy flux? It isn’t counting photons, is it?

These are the questions I need answered before I continue pontificating (as I confess to having done) any further on the effect of IR absorbing gases on global temperature.

Upthread you wrote “I have lots of uncertainty over the entire Climate Change debate.” Yet you went on to express a fervent defense of the GHE. Which are you skeptic or AGW shill?

“But it’s not the IR activity that’s the CAUSE of the surface warming.”

No. It’s correct. It isn’t the IR activity that causes the surface to warm.

Consider the following:

The increase in DWLWIR is an apparent radiative effect of the atmosphere warming. When the atmosphere warms beyond space, from absorbing, thermalising and storing up energy transferred to it as heat from the surface and directly from the sun, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings decreases, and so its total heat loss is naturally reduced. This forces the surface to warm so as to restore its heat balance (the heat input is assumed constant).

Yes, if the atmosphere in question is completely radiatively inert, it (or the main portion of it) will eventually be thermally disconnected from the surface, and so space can still be considered the surface’s only significant cold reservoir. But as soon as you make the atmosphere radiatively active, you will have that thermal connection with the surface established, just like when engaging a ‘clutch’, connecting engine power and mechanical work output, ENABLING causation to occur, and so now the atmospheric temperature will directly affect the total heat loss from the surface, which will be greatly reduced at any given surface T_avg relative to the former situation, once the atmospheric T_avg rises above the ‘temperature’ of space.

You might fool yourself into thinking that it is in fact the increase in the apparent atmospheric DWLWIR itself that forces the surface temperature to rise in this situation. But it’s not. The absolute rise in TEMPERATURE is the cause. The DWLWIR is but a tool enabling the atmospheric temperature to connect with the surface temperature in the first place. When the atmospheric temperature rises in this situation, it will then simply be able to affect the surface temperature, because now the atmosphere is thermally connected with the surface, and so it effectively replaces space as the surface’s thermal surroundings, meaning that, as it warms, the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down (this couldn’t happen with only the vacuum of space around, since a vacuum cannot warm). And as the temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings goes down, there will be a decrease in both radiant, conductive and evaporative/convective heat loss from the surface. Forcing the surface temperature to rise.

The increase in DWLWIR is simply one expression of this decrease in temperature difference between the surface and its surroundings, thus of the reduction in surface heat loss.

The atmospheric IR activity represents the ‘clutch’ of a manual transmission car, the connecting device between power input and output, while the atmospheric temperature represents the engine, providing the power input, the actual CAUSE of the work output, which ends in the wheels of the car spinning round. The clutch itself cannot accomplish this effect, whether engaged or disengaged. Its only purpose is to connect cause (engine power) and effect (wheels spinning).

“In other words, a photon being emitted by the cooler star doesn’t stick its finger out to see how warm the surroundings are before it decides to leave.”

Which only serves to illustrate the very confusion I’m talking about.

No one’s saying a photon can’t move from cold to hot. A photon isn’t part of thermodynamic reality, and so its actions naturally aren’t governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics.

But, for the exact same reason, a photon emitted by a cold object and absorbed by a hotter one also does NOT constitute a MACROscopic transfer of energy from cold to hot. Which means it fundamentally has no bearing on temperature, which is distinctly a MACROscopic phenomenon.

You simply can’t have the cake and eat it too. You can’t BOTH have a photon pass unaffected by the Laws of Thermodynamics AND at the same time have that very same photon directly affecting the magnitude of thermodynamic quantities.

“A photon isnt part of thermodynamic reality, and so its actions naturally arent governed by the Laws of Thermodynamics.”

Sure, same could be said of molecules, not being part of thermodynamic reality. But molecules certainly exist, can be observed, and their collective motions lead to the flow of heat, which can be described by thermodynamics.

norman…”So you studied and worked in geology. Big deal. Do you have extensive experience working and designing heat flow equipment.

Your superior attitude to others is not warranted.

Tim Folkerts nor textbooks confuse me at all. Each object is a separate emitter of IR if it has some temperature. That is the established physics”

Normie is soooo confused.

Do you have extensive experience working and designing…’heat flow equipment’???

What is heat flow equipment???

Norman, you are so hung up in blackbody theory that the reality escapes you. It is theorized that a BB absorbs all energy incident upon it but at thermal equilibrium only, when related to another BB. BBs do not exist.

Why are we talking BB theory??? It’s not required. No one sets up very hot black surfaces next to each other to test them.

Stefan of Stefan-Boltzmann fame did the initial calculations that related temperature of a body to the EM it radiates. It was a one way process of heat being dissipated in a body through EM radiation. Since the body had a temperature between 700C and 1500C and it’s surroundings had an ambient temperature around room temperature, the 2nd law of thermodynamics was not contravened.

However, your interpretation, that a nearby cooler body can radiate EM to a hotter body and raise it’s temperature, is what contravenes the 2nd law. Applied to AGW, it not only contradicts the 2nd law it implies perpetual motion in which heat is recycled from a heated source back to the source to raise its temperature.

There is no textbook on thermodynamics that I have read which states that or implies it. All of their examples ‘with units’ feature a heat transfer from hot to cold and at no time is a net heat or energy transfer implied. Some of them give idiotic inference that EM can flow both ways but they provide no examples to prove it nor do their illustrations offer units.

S-B came out some 25 to 30 years before the explanation of Bohr as to how heat and EM are related. S-B does not imply a two way EM transfer related to heat nor does it infer a net energy transfer.

Bohr, then Schrodinger, proved why only a one way transfer can take place. It has to do with the electrons in atoms that absorb and emit EM. In a nutshell, the electrons simply cannot absorb EM from a cooler source. That satisfies the 2nd law.

Your total distortion of what you think I say and what I actually say is incredible to behold. I clarify my position to you often but it goes over you head and you are not able to process it. We have gone over the same things so many times, you get it wrong EVERY time!

YOU: “However, your interpretation, that a nearby cooler body can radiate EM to a hotter body and raise its temperature, is what contravenes the 2nd law. Applied to AGW, it not only contradicts the 2nd law it implies perpetual motion in which heat is recycled from a heated source back to the source to raise its temperature.”

That is NOT what I state. A nearby cooler body radiates and this IR will cause A HEATED body to reach a higher temperature than it would with an even colder body present. You never get it right and never will. This is real physics yours is NOT. There is no violation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. You DO NOT understand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and you never will. Many have tried to explain it you but you can’t understand it. I have linked it to you many times but your brain can’t process it. You are in an anti-science cult.

You are of the same Conspiracy mind as the Flat-Earth only you choose a different topic. It is all the same. Non of you anti-science people have a clue what the real science says and you don’t care. You are religious fanatics and are guided by a belief.

The complete phony JDHuffman that just makes up stuff does not know what the Kirchhoff law is or how it works or how his goofy cartoon physics violates it. JDHuffman is not logical enough to understand anything. He is a troll and that is all he does. Ball4 understands this clown, he is here only for entertainment value. If you want to believe he knows any physics it is your own flaw. He is most wrong about everything. He makes all his stuff up and will keep doing it.

So far only you and his wife DREMT seem to think he has some actual knowledge of physics. The rest know you he is a phony troll.

“You are most wrong to think that the temperatures of the plates, once separated, would remain the same and you will not do any experiment to prove it.”

This is where the 3 plate problem really messes up your earlier arguments, Norman. With the 2 plate problem, you always argued that when the plates were pushed together, they would both be 244 K, and when separated, the green plate would decrease in temperature from 244 K to 220 K, whilst your blue plate temperature would increase, from 244 K to 262 K.

Now, with the 3 plate problem, you have all 3 plates at 244 K when pushed together. But, when you separate the 3 plates, the two green plates no longer decrease in temperature! They remain at 244 K, whilst your blue plate spontaneously shoots up in temperature. What’s up with that?

Eli is confused and he was told that essentially by two experts in thermodynamics, Gerlich and Tscheuschner. The basis of Eli’s argument is that EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body to raise its temperature, which is nonsense.

G&T implied that Eli is confusing heat with EM. G&T had stated in a paper that heat can only be transferred between bodies of different temperatures one way, from hot to cold. In a rebuttal, Eli and his team inferred that one way transfer meant one of the bodies was not radiating.

In a rebuttal to Eli’s comment, G&T pointed out the obvious, that the 2nd law is about heat transfer only. They claimed only quantities of heat can be summed. In other words, it is not possible to lump heat and EM as a generic energy then claim that generic energy can have a net balance between the bodies.

From a perspective of thermodynamics, radiation from that green plate in Eli’s thought experiment has no effect on the blue plate. It cannot raise it’s temperature, for the simple reason that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a cooler to a hotter body (Clausius and the 2nd law).

The basis of Eli’s argument is that EM from a cooler body can be absorbed by a hotter body to raise its temperature follows from experimental data. G&T performed no experiments. Any expert in thermo. would have done experiments supporting their work thus G&T are not thermodynamics experts. G&T paper has nothing new in it.

Gor,, I have an M.S.M.E (3 graduate level courses in heat transfer), am (was) licensed in CA (P.E. in Mechanical Engineering, license 13316 (ret)). During my engineering career I worked on a lot of different things including solid rockets, meteorological satellites (including AMSU and SSMIS), also, among other things, I wrote a successful general purpose heat transfer program that runs on a PC and wrote a successful internal ballistics program. This 2-plate problem, as defined excluding edge effects, is truly trivial. Eli got the right answer in spite of the compensating errors and apparently not having a practical understanding of how thermal radiation heat transfer works.

A heated body exposed to the cold background of space will get warmer if it is shielded from that cold background by anything with a temperature above that of the background. Valid heat transfer analysis shows that. It is like radiation from the shield towards the heated body is cancelled by the part of the spectrum having the same wavelengths from the heated body. The net flow of energy is always from warm to less-warm and that is what 2lot cares about. The equation at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344375 is OK for the idealized plate problem but in real problems view factor and grey body emissivity are needed.

G&T do not appear to have it correct either. Perhaps it is because of ambiguity of terms. Quantities of energy flow can most certainly be summed. Consider a U shaped part in air with one of the legs above the other and the bottom leg heated. To track the temperature of the top leg, the conduction thru the U, convection from air that got warmer by going past the bottom leg and net radiation between the legs need to be added together. (In most practical problems one or two of these might be small enough to be ignored. An experienced analyst would know.)

The green plate does not directly raise the temperature of the heated blue plate but it indirectly allows the heated blue plate to get warmer by shielding it from the even colder background.

Tim–BB is NOT a reflector
Norman–BB is a reflector, heat shield, insulator
bobdrug–BB is a not a reflector, until I change my mind
Swanson–BB is a reflector, insulator
fluffball–BB is an insulator, but it does NOT insulate, reflect, or shield anything.
Dan–BB is a heat shield

A “consensus” appears to be developing. They don’t exactly agree on what they want the BB to be, but they all have realized their pseudoscience won’t work with a BB.

DP, As our resident troll notes, you are agreeing that “back radiation” can warm the hotter body. The essence of the “sky dragons” argument is that this process violates the 2nd Law, asserting that this “fact” implies that the CO2 greenhouse effect doesn’t happen. They’ve been promoting this bogus claim for about a decade. To counter these guys and their spreading denialist falsehood, I conducted my Green Plate demo.

Swanson, the reason your bogus “experiment” is invalid has been explained to you. You avoid that reality.

Want another round?

You recently claimed that your “green” plate had an emissivity of 0.94. How did you determine that? And, if you know the emissivities of the plates, you should be able to estimate the related fluxes. So, please provide all temperatures, emissivities, and fluxes, along with a statement of what you believe you are proving.

Huffingman the Troll,
Would using a highly polished reflective surface on the Green plate instead of the painted surface warm the Blue one and if not, why not? In Holman’s text, he noted that any surface emissivity would work as an insulating radiation shield. Thus, the emissivity of the Green plate really doesn’t matter, unless one insists on highly accurate predictions. But, my demo was not intended to be a highly accurate experiment. My results simply demonstrated the warming of the Blue plate, which refutes all the denialist claims regarding the 2nd Law. If you don’t like that, do your own experiment and present it.

If not, show us all temperatures, fluxes, and emissivities. So far, all we have are your nebulous claims, hinting that you have somehow disproved 2LoT. Raising the temperature of the blue plate is not hard. That can be done with insulation. You set out to “prove” the blue/green plate nonsense, that indicated the BB green plate could warm the blue plate. You have NOT proved any such thing, except in your closed mind.

And, keep the juvenile remarks going. That just assures me there isn’t much substance to you.

Another empty post from Huffingman the Troll. It can’t answer a simple, straightforward question. Why not? Probably because the question’s already been answered by long ago scientific investigations and by agreeing with the scientific facts, the troll must admit he’s wrong.

He’s verified it well enough that I replicated the essence of the experiment, as did Dr. Spencer on the atm. JD should replicate the experiment also and instrument it to JD’s heart’s desire. Then report what the instruments read.

However that would be so little entertainment and totally unamusing, my expectation is that JD will not do so. Draw some more cartoons JD and continue your 3 ring circus, that is a more entertaining use of your time.

“February was warmer than average for much of Australia, and particularly warm for Queensland. For Australia as a whole the monthly mean temperature was 0.64 C above the long-term average, with both maxima and minima above average at +0.66 C and +0.62 C respectively.”

Tim is correct about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Your counter is only one case of the Law. Being a law it needs to cover more than just one case. The case you show is if an object is emitting to an absolute zero surrounding. You really really need to quit being a pretend expert. Your flaws and errors are continuous.

Have you submitted your nonsense cartoon plate physics to a University Department of Physics for evaluation? I will submit my 345 K for the blue plate in your thought experiment.

Since you don’t like the material from 1901 (which still includes temperature of object minus the temperature of the surroundings)…the K in this equation may take into account both area of object and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. The area will not be changing in the use of this equation.

But I find a more modern version that does include the equation you don’t think is the Stefan-Boltzmann Law in the Law. The one you insist is the only correct one is not very useful in any application of heat transfer. The more developed form is useful in engineering applications.

Strictly, the S-B/Kirchhoff eqn. is epsilon*sigma*T^4 for the emitter object and alpha*sigma*T^4 for the absorber object. Absorp_tivity and emissivity are not equal for spectrally integrated quantities.

But then I’m negligibly sure that JD learned some physics and just didn’t bother to tell us JD was assuming the spectrum, angular distribution, state of polarization all were the same for JD’s emitter as for any absorber so was writing the restricted form of S-B/Kirchhoff law.

As well as I’m negligibly certain JD meant the medium between emitter and any absorber was emitting negligible radiation.

You have been linked to the real world experiment by E. Swanson showing you the very thing. You deny the experiment and call it bogus. You are unable to process the difference in plate-together (conduction transfers heat now) vs plate-apart (no conduction heat transfer).

Unwilling to understand this huge difference you make up phony unscientific cartoons to justify your ignorance of this huge difference and then you make up your own unsupported physics to support your absurd notions.

Are all photons always absorbed? Yes if you are dealing with a blackbody. No if it is not.

No Norman, Swanson’s “experiment” was not real world. And, even he doesn’t claim the plate will rise over 180 degrees F (over 100 degrees C). That’s you claiming such nonsense.

Will all photons always be absorbed? The correct answer is “NO”, unless you wallow in pseudoscience. BBs have different spectra with different temperatures. So even a BB will not aways absorb all photons.

Learn some physics.

And I noticed you avoided the question about entropy. Probably a smart move on your part….

E. Swanson experiment does not use the energy your thought experiment does. You have 400 watts of energy directly added to the blue plate continuously by some source.

E. Swanson’s test uses a light source and the energy received by his blue plate is considerably less. The temperature rise would be changed by the amount of energy added. The more you add the more you have to get rid off.

His test clearly shows that separated plates (in vacuum) do NOT achieve the same temperature. The green plate is cooler than the blue plate when they reach a steady state temperature.

You are totally wrong about blackbodies. It does not matter if the spectrum is different. One spectrum is what the blue plate will emit from its surface, the other is the spectrum of what it will absorb from the green plate. You are just wrong and no amount of your posting will change this. Claes Johnson is clueless and you seem to follow his fantasy physics. That is NOT textbook physics, it is made up ideas that are not at all confirmed by any experimental evidence. We already have experimental evidence proving this idea is wrong. We have no experimental evidence to remotely suggest it is correct.

No clown, you don’t have any “experimental evidence”. You “believe” the bogus “experiment” after you have changed a black body into a magical insulator, reflector, heat shield, nuclear reactor, or tomato.

And with two green plates, you believe you are raising the temperature from frost-bite to skin-burn range!

Huffingman the Troll thinks that my Green Plate demo isn’t “experimental evidence”. I suspect that Huffingman has no “real world” experience in the sciences, so he can’t understand the difference between reality and fiction. As a result, he thinks it’s OK to post a bogus, unscientific cartoon and claim that it “proves” something or other. Where’s his “real world” evidence?

Huffingman thinks my demo relied on reflective insulation. What an idiot, the surface emissivity of the Green plate was about 0.94. That’s the exact opposite definition of reflection. I could have made the Green plate with a highly reflective surface and the Blue plate would have ended up even hotter.

IN EXTRATROPICS FOR MARCH, APRIL AND AUGUST 1981, NOVEMBER 1979 due to missing data.

ALSO BE CAUTIOUS USING LT AND MT OVER HIGH TERRAIN ( >1500 M)

The areas of poor anomaly values are : Tibetian Plateau,
Antarctica, Greenland and the narrow spine of the Andes.
Depending on how much of these areas are neglected, the coverage
should be about 97-98% of the globe.

Are they still claiming that the data over the Antarctic shouldn’t be used, even though they include it in their products? Note that RSS does not report poleward of 70S for this reason.

Their data is just a large array of their monthly values for a year of the gridded data. The first line gives the month and the year for the large mass of numbers which follow. The -9999s are fields with missing data or for high latitudes poleward of 82.5 degrees at the beginning and end of each month’s data.

Those files represent their results after they applied all their calculations, it’s not actual satellite measurements, which you seem to suggest. I think S & C’s product uses the same format as NOAA STAR. S & C start with the more basic “raw” data MSU/AMSU data from NOAA, if you want to take a shot at “real” data.

You’re correct with the 290 K, DREMT. I was content to let Norman wallow in his mistake. We gave him hint after hint, ridiculing the 345 K, but he was unable to figure it out. He always clings to his beliefs, in complete disregard of the facts. But, he believes he can think for himself!

(The 290 K is also 244 * (2)^0.25, which matches their perverted S/B equation.)

It requires the middle blue plate to reach 290 K to get the same energy out. The situation can be seen in the world around you.

A puddle of water in the hot sun and dry asphalt receive the same energy in and the lose the same energy out but they will be at different temperatures because you have another heat transfer mechanism taking place with the puddle of water. The water is losing as much energy as the asphalt to remain at it steady state temperature. It is losing energy by radiation but also evaporation, with the asphalt it is primarily by radiation so the dry asphalt must reach a higher temperature to get rid of the same amount it is receiving.

As I have said,

since you nor DREMT accept E. Swanson’s test, you should do one yourselves. You will find that if you have three plates in contact with the middle one receiving a continuous heat input when in contact they will have roughly the same temperatures. If you separate them you will find the green plates remain at the same temperature but the blue plate temperature increases. You really need to do some experiment yourself. E. Swanson already showed what happens and you, for no good reason, reject his results. The green plate warms the blue plate but it does not reach the same temperature as the blue plate. It is all there.

NO violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as described by Clausius, and all modern textbooks on heat transfer (there are actual online versions you can read).

You and all the skeptics who think it violates the 2nd Law get that version from blog sites like PSI or Joseph Postma. They are NOT what the physics state. They are what some lunatics on the Internet falsely believe it states. You are a true believer of blog science but you won’t read actual physics. Too bad. I have linked you to actual physics so many times but none stick. You prefer the made up version.

I am sure that when you are talking heat transfer by radiation, there is indeed a two way transfer.

Conceptually you can think of the transfer as two-way, and hence express it that way mathematically. In REALITY, though, the transfer is one-way only. Because the transfer in question is distinctly a THERMODYNAMIC (i.e. MACROscopic) one …

The way I was trained, heat is just another form of energy.

It was never a separate form of energy. It’s a very specific kind of energy QUANTITY. Heat [Q] is distinguished by its effect on thermodynamic systems and by the way that effect comes about.

Heat is defined simply as the amount of energy spontaneously transferred per unit of time from one place to another by virtue of the temperature difference between those two places, and always from hot to cold only.

So whenever I say heat, think energy, if that helps.

No. It doesn’t help. It confuses. If you don’t know what “heat” is or means, bob, then don’t use the term. It only confuses yourself and those who read your comments.

Since we are talking about the effects of photons, Kristian, and as you say, photons don’t exist in macro thermodynamics, then it is obvious that macro thermodynamic is not suited to address the problem.

So we will call it an energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface by way of photons.

So we will agree that there is no two way transfer of heat only energy, but somehow the end result is that the surface is warmer than it would be without CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

And in order to avoid saying words that may be misinterpreted because some assholes restrict the definitions of terms, increases in the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result in the increase of temperature of the surface, adjusted for changes in other variables that could also affect the temperature of the surface.

And finally there is a two way flow of photons which carry energy which can result in temperature changes when the photons are abs//orbed by surfaces.

Since we are talking about the effects of photons, Kristian, and as you say, photons don’t exist in macro thermodynamics, then it is obvious that macro thermodynamic is not suited to address the problem.

Hehe, no. It’s the other way around, bob. You specifically talk about things being HEATED. Then photons do not have a place in your analysis. Only HEAT FLUXES do.

JD occasionally stumbles into something true because added CO2 ppm does NOT add new thermodynamic internal energy to the system as CO2 doesn’t burn a fuel to do so, thus you can’t just reverse EVERYTHING JD writes and get to the true observationally relevant science.

Wrong again, bob. The atmosphere has about 500 times more oxygen than CO2, by volume. The specific heat capacity of oxygen is higher than CO2. If you believe CO2 prevents energy from leaving the system, you better do something about all the oxygen in the air!

(For any clowns that are so scared of oxygen they will not be able to sleep tonight, neither O2 nor CO2, or ANYTHING in the atmosphere, can prevent energy from leaving the system. Sleep well.)

Would you hold this steel bar in your hand while I point a CO2 laser at the steel bar?

Now describe what happens, what do you experience?

If the CO2 laser doesn’t heat the steel bar, they you will be able to hold on to it for a long time, no?

You don’t give up, do you, bob? Listen: You are wrong in believing that IR radiation is the main heater of the atmosphere. This is not a matter of opinion. YOU ARE WRONG …!!

The radiative heat loss of the surface is the UWLWIR minus the DWLWIR, i.e. the NET LW: [398 – 345 =] 53 W/m^2. Since 20 W/m^2 of those 53 W/m^2 on average go straight to space via the atmospheric window, then the radiative heat flux from the surface to the atmosphere, specifically, is only: [53 – 20 =] 33 W/m^2.

Photons do not carry heat. They carry photonic energy. The total amount of photonic energy inside a thermal radiation field has to be averaged in a precisely physically defined way before it can be called “heat”. This is Thermodynamics 101.

I have asked you now a number of times, bob, to read up and come back to tell me what that particular average is, but you simply refuse and rather keep coming back with comments that make you come across as nothing but an obstinate child.

Again, why are you discussing the CO2 laser and the metal rod? To show me how HEAT HEATS!?

Then Kristian knows there must be radiative cold loss, radiative cold flux, photons must not carry cold, cold must colds, cold colds!

Kristian obviously doesn’t get “cold” or “heat”, Kristian should go with enthalpy in discussions to correctly write about atm. thermodynamics. And learn from an expert like Zemansky: “It is incredible that writers and teachers are still referring to the “heat in a body”…There is no such thing as the “heat in a body””

When used correctly in modern day, heat is simply a measure of the object’s constituent particle total KE.

The use of enthalpy (h) is correct, more meaningful in thermodynamics.

Whereas I calculated the 800 watts for just one side to get the wrong answer you can easily get to the 345 K by just adding two more plates on each side of the blue plate. 7 total plates one blue and 3 unheated green plates spaced very close together.

If you keep adding plates the blue plate will continue to increase in temperature as long as you continue to add energy to it.

You have no idea how little actual physics you understand or know. I have linked you to textbook physics. You just ignore it and act like you know things. As it goes you know less than the phony JDHuffman who makes up junk science and peddles it here with false authority pretending it is valid.

Why not actually do an experiment and you will see that JDHuffman is a fraud?

You have such poor wording it certainly sounds as if you are indicating the links are funny.

Anyway that is another failure on your part. You have yet to demonstrate anything I do not understand correctly in the links I post. It is just one of your many made up declarations that your one, adoring fan DREMT, wants you to make. You are unable to demonstrate what I don’t understand and never will but it is certainly easy to post. I guess it makes you feel important to try and make such claims. Really does not matter you will never support anything you claim.

String up.thread is getting too clumsy. I am responding to http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-344796 and later
Bal,, I get your point that warming from CO2 could be so slow that a short time observation might miss it. My arguments against this shortcoming being a factor include the first 4 reasons in Section 2 which consider time spans of from 120 years to millions of years. Another argument is the assessment in Sections 17-19 which determines the contribution of each of the three factors considered (CO2 is not one of them). The combination results in a 98.3% match 1895-2017 (122 years) and what looks like a reasonable approximation of temperatures back to before 1700.

ES,, Agreed the notches are at the absor.p.tion bands but what do they say about what happens to the energy that was absorbed? I say a lot of it gets emitted to space by WV.

True, MODTRAN only applies to clear sky and that is only about 38% of the planet surface area. In the wn range 50-600/cm CO2 is essentially transparent so the radiation coming from WV mostly zips right through to space. A bit gets absorbed by the s.carce WV molecules, thermalized and shows up in the CO2 column partially refilling the notch as shown by the difference in notch dep.th between the 20 km and 50 km MODTRAN figures (Figure 5). I pretty much agree with your assessment of what happens above clouds, especially above 10 km or so. It is the -50 C that gets nearly all of the WV out.

I was sur.prised at the small amount of added precipitation from the increased water use. Average precipitation for the planet is about a meter. The added water calculated in Sect 9 spread over the planet only amounts to 0.07 % increase; if just spread over land, still only about 0.24 %. IMO that is not consequential and all this precipitation lately is caused by something else.

True, irrigation has been around for a long time but Aquastat shows a huge surge starting in about 1950 (Fig 3.5) which lines up quite well with the TPW increase (Fig 3).

dan…not a reply to your posts above but in relationship to water vapour.

Here in the Vancouver, Canada, area we have experienced an inordinately cold spell of sub-zero temperatures. At night, the thermostat has been lowered to about 18C (~65F) and during the dry, cold spell at night ranging down to -10C, the furnace hardly ever came on.

Suddenly, the temperature rose to just above 0C and the air became very moist outside. The furnace started coming on far more frequently.

Gor,, Probably your house is well insulated and has a lot of thermal capacitance. When the thermostat is lowered, it takes a long time for the heat to leak out and there is a lot of it because of the high thermal capacitance. Thus the furnace would not come on for quite a while. The entire process is a thermal transient. After the house has cooled down, the furnace has to start kicking in to stop the temperature decline. I do not see how WV could be a factor. The temperature of the air is given by the thermometer irrespective of WV content. Wind change can make a significant difference.

“Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.” This leads to the observation that if an object absorbs 100 percent of the radiation incident upon it, it must reradiate 100 percent. As already stated, this is the definition of a blackbody radiator”.

AT THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.

That’s why you are so confused about hotter bodies absorbing radiation from cooler body with the inference that action raises the temperature of the hotter body.

I have tried to explain to you that a heated body, say an electrically heated body, gets it heat, hence it temperature, from the electric source. However, part of the final temperature of the body is dependent on how much heat it can dissipate due to conduction, convection, and radiation.

If you interfere with any one of the three, so the heated body can no longer dissipate heated as efficiently, the heated body’s temperature will increase. That has nothing to do with a nearby cooler body radiating EM.

That’s what happened in swannie’s two experiments. In the first, placing a metal plate above the heated plate blocked its convection and radiation. The heated plate warmed because it’s heat dissipation had been reduced but it warmed to the level it would normally be under such restricted dissipation due to the electrical power applied.

My explanations satisfy the 2nd law, your’s do not.

In swannie#2, he blocked the hotter plate’s ability to radiate from one side therefore the heated plate could not dissipate heat from that side and it got warmer, not due to radiation from the cooler plate but due to reduced dissipation of heat.

YOU: “The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.”

Please give supporting evidence for this statement. I have not heard of it before and I think you are just making it up. If you can come up with textbook support of this I will consider it a valid point. At this time it is an unsupported conjecture. Not very valuable for the advancement of science.

norman…”YOU: The emissivity and absorp-tion relationship exists only at thermal equilibrium. As one body becomes hotter, that relationship no longer exists.

Please give supporting evidence for this statement. I have not heard of it before and I think you are just making it up”.

I quoted it straight from the link you provided for Kircheoff. All the work done by Kircheoff with emissivity and absorp-tion was done at thermal equilibrium. It makes no sense when there is a temperature difference between two bodies.

You have not supported your claim. It does not matter that Kirchhoff established his Law with plates at equilibrium. That in NO way proves your conclusion.

I have requested actual support of your claim but as always you won’t do it.

What source do you have the relationship between emissivity and absorb(itivity) changes with temperature. You only give your own opinions on how you think things work. Things I have demonstrated to be wrong many many times. You don’t accept real science over your fantasy version so I will not be able to ever convince you of your errors.

I am asking you to support you declaration without using your own made up opinions of how you think EMR is emitted or absorbed. I want you to support this with actual textbook information. I won’t expect you to comply with that request. That is because it is just something you made up and you can’t find support for it. I am not worried, that has not stopped you before. You are just an Science Denier Conspiracy minded person. Nothing will change your state.

So says the one that WILL not support anything they post and rejects valid textbook physics. So says the one who rejects a valid test of two plates (for no real reason). So says the one who never does his own tests but will criticize those who actually do.

You are a clown and know nothing except how to correctly spell Wien’s Law. Your value here is as spell checker. As for useful physics information you need to be avoided. You will only lead some ignorant people astray.

When you actually do some real experiment maybe people will listen to you. Right now you only have Gordon Robertson and your wife DREMT, the rest consider you a no-nothing.

I guess you might dream that you have supported your opinions with actual physics. I have not seen any yet and that is when you post to anyone. Most your posts are taunts to other posters or telling them they don’t know any physics.

Please Support your conjecture: “3 plates together, at equilibrium:

244K…244K…244K

3 plates slightly separated, at equilibrium:

244K…290K…244K

Exactly same energy in/out.”

That this would occur with textbook physics or an actual experiment. The one experiment performed so far by E. Swanson shows you are in error. You have to provide more support than your own cartoon you drew. That is not valid support.

Norman, are you feeling alright? Only, you have already agreed that you think with 3 plates, 1 green either side the blue, the blue plate will rise in temperature to 290 K. Just scroll a little further up and you can read your own comments where you agree with it. In fact, you said that just by adding a couple more green plates each side of the blue, the blue plate would rise in temperature to 345 K!

JDHuffman does not think the blue plate will reach 290 K. He thinks that is a violation of the 2nd Law (which he does not understand but pretends to). His belief is all plates will be at 244 K if separated or not.

If he thought it would b 244-290-244 I would agree with him. That is not his position. I am not sure what yours is.

I am really expecting you NOT to comment to me at all. I ignore you but that did not help, when I posted to other posters I saw your lame comments.

Some people, like Ball4, enjoy your posts as a form of entertainment. I find your terrible nonsense physics boring. I find your lack of support of any of your nonsense unscientific. I really dislike your lunatic attitude that you will reject valid experiments because they don’t fit in your fantasy world of delusional physics.

I think you are a waste of time and effort. You are not smart enough to read material I link to so you pretend to be smart by posting the same stupid comment every-time “Norman posts another link he doesn’t understand” Just cover for the fact you are not able to understand what is linked to but people like DREMT or the goofy Gordon Robertson will think you are a genius or something.

GORDO, Are you refering to my cookie sheet demo? Recall that I added a fan to push air between the hot and cold plates. Notice that that air was at room temperature, which was near freezing when I ran the test. Now, please explain how convection with freezing air would warm the hotter plate. Oh, while you’re at it, provide a explanation for the Green Plate results using physics instead of BS.

dan…”The net flow of energy is always from warm to less-warm and that is what 2lot cares about”.

No insult intended, however, I am a specialist in certain areas of the electrical and electronic fields yet I know little about other areas. You need to step back and refresh your basics. There is no such thing in physics as a ‘net flow of energy’, especially with reference to an ambiguous generic energy comprised of both thermal and electromagnetic energies. .

You never see current running both ways in an electric circuit nor do you see water flowing both ways in a pipe when one end is pressurized. As rocks fall from a cliff, you don’t see rocks whizzing by them vertically to higher altitudes.

The only instance I can think of where thermal energy may flow both ways is between bodies in thermal equilibrium. Then you should get a net energy flow that sums to zero. Otherwise, one body has to be hotter.

In the present discussion we are talking about a relationship between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy. In a nutshell, there is no relationship other than the relationship between the electrons on atoms that emit/absorb EM and the electron relationship to temperature.

Clearly, as electrons emit EM en masse from a body which has no independent source of heat the body’s temperature drops. Conversely, as the electrons in a body absorb EM from a hotter body, the temperature of that body increases.

You cannot sum two energy forms like EM and heat, to form a net, unless you convert EM to it’s equivalent thermal units or convert thermal units to EM units. As far as I know, there is no such conversion in free space other than via electrons on atoms.

It is plainly incorrect to speak in terms of summing energy flows between different energies in opposite directions to get a net energy balance.

For one, heat cannot flow through space other than as a flow of mass in convection. There is a tiny conduction of heat via the molecules in air but it is trivial.

Heat cannot be radiated through space…period. Heat does not radiate, it is a property of atoms in motion. If the mass does not move, the heat does not move. Therefore, you either have EM or you have heat, they cannot exist simultaneously from the same source. Once that body radiates EM, heat is lost.

EM is a transverse wave with an electric field and a magnetic field. It has no mass nor is it associated with mass. EM can carry no heat, only a potential to create heat.

And we have not even discussed the quantum aspects. Bohr laid out the basis of that in 1913, explaining how EM can be absorbed by the electrons in an atom, forcing the electron to a higher energy quantum level PROVIDED THE EM HAS THE REQUISITE ENERGY AND FREQUENCY TO BE ABSORBED.

The relationship is E = hf, where E is the difference in energy levels between electron energy orbitals. The f is related to the frequency of the electron which varies with its energy level. If neither matches (in the EM) the need of the electron, the EM is not absorbed. EM from a cooler source does not match, therefore it is not absorbed.

If you can explain how to get past that requirement so a hotter body can absorbed EM from a cooler body I’d like to hear it.

Eli’s experiment has no correct answer for the simply reason there can be no heat transfer in two directions between the green and blue plates.

You can’t mess with this Dan, the 2nd law mentions nothing about a net flow of energy, it specifically address the transfer of heat from a hot body to a cooler body under normal means. The 2nd law says nothing about EM and you cannot hide EM under the umbrella of the 2nd law by claiming it as an obscure net energy balance.

If you treat the 2nd law with entropy then you are describing a negative entropy, which is not allowed.

You are abstracting the energies of two different forms of energy in one generic energy then claiming that undefined generic energy can have a net balance.

ball4…”First Gordon tells us the heat does not move, then Gordon tells us the heat does move. Gordon is not able to keep his stories straight”.

I said that heat must be accompanied by mass in order to move. You cannot move heat between bodies via radiation. The transfer is apparent since the temperature in the hotter body is reduced and the temperature in the cooler body rises. No heat is physically transferred between bodies by radiation since heat is lost in the hotter body after conversion to EM.

Heat can flow through a solid because it has a pathway via the atoms and their electrons. Heat is transferred in a conductor in the same manner as electrical current, via valence electrons.

There is little in the way of conduction through a gas like air because the molecules are so far apart. There is no conduction of heat through a vacuum because heat needs mass to move.

Then if heat is lost, heat must have moved. While Gordon writes: “the heat does not move” so Gordon is still confused.

“the heat does not move” IS true as heat is only a measure of the object’s internal particle KE.

Gordon is getting closer to decent science with: “You cannot move heat between bodies via radiation.” You can move thermodynamic internal energy between bodies via radiation, conduction, and convection. For example, the thermodynamic internal energy in one body reduces by emission while the other thermodynamic internal energy increases through absorp_tion.

Gor,, Of course there is net flow of energy. Consider a block with a laser aimed at it, a fire under it and an electric heater in it. The temperature of the block would increase according to the net of the sum of the energy flows acquired from each source minus the losses which would be convective, conductive (unless magnetically suspended) and radiative. Of course to sum them they need to be all in the same units, e.g. Watts.

I favor using the word heat only as a verb when necessary to avoid ambiguity.

I have read in different places that electrons changing levels only occurs at very high temperatures (perhaps also in lasers) and is not what is going on at earth temperatures.

The equation gives the correct answers. That is what all valid heat transfer programs do. Effectively, the radiation from the cooler body cancels the same radiation from the warmer body. The equation for thermal conductance includes (Ta^4 Tb^4)/(Ta Tb). This gets multiplied by (Ta Tb) in the solution. If the number is negative it just means that Tb turned out to be warmer than Ta.

Eli got the correct answer.

Using the net flow of energy produces the correct answers. That is how it has always been done and always will be done. Saying 2LOT does not mean net because it does not say net or mention thermal radiation is bogus. This stuff needs to be understood to use it correctly.

dan…”The equation gives the correct answers. That is what all valid heat transfer programs do”.

The S-B equation does not describe a transfer of heat between bodies nor does it describe a two way transfer of energy. It says nothing about a net energy transfer.

S-B describes only the radiation density from a body of temperature T in the original Stefan equation. Later, Boltzmann added a term for the ambient temperature surrounding a body of temperature T but it is purely a one way transfer.

Eli got it wrong by applying S-B in the reverse direction. That’s the basis of AGW, a fiction. The T^4 relationship between EM and temperature comes from an experiment by Tyndall in which he heated a platinum filament wire electrically so its temperature ranged from 700C to 1500C as he increased the current. As the temperature changed, the colour of the EM emission changed and Stefan was able to relate the EM colour frequency to the temperature and derive the T^4 relationship.

You guys, Eli included, are claiming heat can be transferred from the cooler ambient air at room temperature to the platinum filament at 1500C, which is sheer nonsense.

“Consider a block with a laser aimed at it, a fire under it and an electric heater in it. The temperature of the block would increase according to the net of the sum of the energy flows acquired from each source minus the losses which would be convective, conductive (unless magnetically suspended) and radiative”.

You are summing quantities of heat, not EM. The laser’s EM would be converted to heat in the block and would no longer be EM. If the block got sufficiently hot from it’s internal heater and the fire underneath, the laser EM would have no effect.

The body’s temperature rises due to the vibration of it’s atoms. That can only happen if it is subjected to a higher temperature source of heat. Lower temperature source will not affect it in such a manner as to raise its temperature.

What you guys are claiming is that EM radiated from a cooler source could raise the temperature of the fire and internally heated block. So if you surrounded the block with ice, it’s temperature should rise.

You cannot ignore heat as you claim. It is a very real form of energy as described by Clausius, who invented the U in the first law. He claimed U, internal energy, is the heat equivalent of work done by vibrating atoms and the heat injected to make them vibrate harder, raising their temperature. The work done in the vibration of atoms in a lattice is not possible without the addition of heat.

Clausius claimed the Q in the 1st law is external heat added to a body and W is work done by the added heat. U represents internal heat and work.

I don’t know where modernists get this notion that heat is an abstraction. I suppose from the same place where they figure gravity is not a force but an anomaly from space-time, a complete illusion.

Some scientist are not only getting stupid, they are getting stupider.

Gor,, Of course it is nonsense to claim that heat can be transferred from the cooler ambient air at room temperature to the platinum filament. That is not the net flow of energy. Of course you cannot heat something by surrounding it with ice. Unless, of course, unless the ice is shielding it from an even lower temperature. I have explained it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

It appears you are seeking a distinction in quibble over the meaning of words where there is no difference when done correctly. Why are you still arguing against what works? That hints of willful blindness. You are beginning to sound like JDH (who should be ignored).

dan…”It appears you are seeking a distinction in quibble over the meaning of words where there is no difference when done correctly. Why are you still arguing against what works?”

Not interesting in quibbles, which I understand are small, furry animals with two legs shorter on either side so they can run around hills more easily.

I am defending the excellent work done by Rudolf Clausius between 1850 and 1879, where he precisely laid down the 2nd law, defined entropy, and introduced U as internal energy to the 1st law.

Rudy stated clearly that heat can NEVER by its own means be transferred from a colder body to a hotter body. He claimed that applied to radiation as well, even though, at the time, he, like other major scientists like Stefan, Boltzmann, and Planck, though heat flowed through the atmosphere as heat rays.

He based the 2nd law on a precise analysis of a heat engine where he followed the changes in pressure, volume and temperature around a cycle. If you follow his analysis it becomes clear why heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by itself.

If you introduce radiation as a heat transfer mechanism then it must satisfy the 2nd law with regard to heating. It must also satisfy quantum theory, which is based essentially on the action of electrons in atoms. Schrodinger’s famous wave equation, which is the basis of quantum theory, is about electrons.

If heat can only be transferred hot to cold by its own means there’s no need to talk about a net energy balance. EM and the heat source that caused it cannot exist at the same time. When thermal energy is converted to EM via electrons, the heat ceases to exist, it has been consumed in the process. That is represented by the emitting electron dropping to a lower energy level.

Quantum theory tells us that EM cannot be absorbed by the electrons in a body unless the EM energy and frequency exactly match the requirements of the electrons, as in a resonant filter. EM from a cooler body will have a lower frequency therefore it will not resonate with the electron frequency nor can it force the electron to a higher energy level, which en masse causes a warming of the body.

There is no net energy flow anywhere. The energy, as thermal energy, flows (transfers0 in one direction only and that applies to the EM as well.

You inferred in an earlier post that electronic transitions only occur at high temperatures. There’s no evidence to support that. The same transitions apply at microwave frequencies and below. Communications at RF frequencies require an electron transition otherwise the electrons in an antenna would not absorb the EM signal.

There is no other mechanism in an atom or molecule that can absorb or emit EM.

There are at least two other mechanisms in an atom or molecule that can absorb or emit EMR: rotation levels and vibration levels in addition to electronic levels.

Gordon, being somewhat loosely involved in electronics, simply can’t step out of his own silo and learn about these other mechanisms that exist in the atm. at STP, where electronic levels are NOT populated.

ball4…”which is why you do measure current running both ways in an electric circuit”.

Strong odour of red herring around here. You plucked that one straight out of context. I did mention that water in a pipe does not run both ways with one end pressurized.

I guess you don’t understand enough about electrical theory to understand that current cannot run through a circuit without an applied voltage. In order for current to change direction, the polarity of the applied voltage must change.

It amounts to the same thing, current can only flow one way from a higher potential to a lower potential. Exactly the same with heat, where potential is determined by temperature, which indicates the relative hotness of a body. Heat will never be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object for that reason, unless you supply external power and apparatus to do it.

There is absolutely no reason why heat transfer by radiation should contradict that fact. A cooler body is at a lower potential heat-wise and heat will simply not transfer from a lower potential to a higher potential.

That clearly means that EM from a cooler source is not absorbed by a hotter body.

Heat will never be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object because as Gordon correctly writes: “the heat does not move…No heat is physically transferred between bodies”.

However, thermodynamic internal energy CAN be transferred from a cooler object to a hotter object as Maxwell-Boltzmann derived and later experiments proved. They clearly showed by theory and experiment that EM from a cooler source IS absorbed by a hotter body so Gordon was proven wrong long time ago. Planck and his buddies demonstrated that also by both theory and experiment. They were all in cahoots until they published results. See Kurlbaum Rubens 1901.

“In order for current to change direction, the polarity of the applied voltage must change. It amounts to the same thing, current can only flow one way from a higher potential to a lower potential.”

This is why they call it AC, so you DO see (Gordon term) current running both ways in an electric circuit.

Current – meaning the net flow of electrons or water — always moves from higher to lower potential/voltage/pressure.

Individual particles move both directions. It is well known — and easily confirmed — that electrons in a wire typically move with an average “drift velocity” on the order of a few cm/s. It is also well known that the speed of individual conduction electrons is on the order of 1,000,000 m/s (the “fermi speed”).

So if you could actually look at the motion of electrons in a wire, you would see electrons moving at incredible speeds both from higher potential to lower potential. There would be just the slightest net speed from higher to lower potential.

“Why not just come out and claim current flows backwards?”
Because it doesn’t.

“Thats your game.”
Nope. My “game” is exactly what I wrote.

“Youre trying to pervert physics.”
And yet you can’t actually find anything I said that is wrong, so you go after your distorted view of what you imagine I might have intended.

“You want energy to flow against the potential …”
Once again, nope. You want to imagine that is what I want, even thought I never said anything of the sort. Then you have something easy to attack, rather than actually getting down to real issues.

Rather than attacking your strawmen, discuss what I actually said.

Do you agree that the drift velocity of electrons is typically on the order of a few cm/s?
Do you agree that speed of the conduction electrons (the Fermi velocity) is on the order of 1,000,000 m/s?
Do you agree that electrons in a wire, even a wire carrying a current, are moving in all directions — including nearly half that are moving “upstream” against the potential at any given moment?

JD, so if you agree with the physics I stated, how can any of it be a perversion of physics?

As for your questions …

3) The shape of the curve is the same. The peak shifts to shorter wavelengths at higher temperatures and the intensity increases (at every wavelength).

2) No laws of physics are violated. [I assume we are talking about this scenario: a blackbody “blue plate” has a heater supplying 400 W/m^2 of thermal energy. Two blackbody “green plates” are placed nearby, one on either side.] I obviously can’t address every law of physics here, but here are the key laws for this situation …

a) Energy is conserved. The Blue plate gains 400 J each second from the heater. The blue plate radiates (sigma)(290^4 – 244^4) = 200 J each second to each green plate, or 400 J each second total.
(energy in) = (energy out), so the temperature will hold steady.

Meanwhile, each green plate gains 200 J each second from the blue plate. Each green plate in turn radiates (sigma)(244^4 – 0^4) = 200 J each second to space.
(energy in) = (energy out), so the temperature will hold steady.

b) The 2LoT is obeyed. Heat always flows from hotter –> colder. From the 290K plate to the 244K plate; from the 244K plate to space.

We used to do experiments with microwaves in which we had a klystron sitting on a waveguide with a horn attached to the end to interface the klystron microwave output from the waveguide to the atmosphere.

Further away we’d have a parabolic dish that collected the microwaves and reflected them to a receiver. If we were transmitting at 0.25 watts, we could measure the reflected power from the parabolic dish to calculate the dissipation.

Does that help?

That’s how radar operates. You send out a a high frequency RF wave (which is EM) at high power and it strikes an object where the EM is reflected partly back to the source where it is collected on a receiving antenna.

Thats how radar operates. You send out a a high frequency RF wave (which is EM) at high power and it strikes an object where the EM is reflected partly back to the source where it is collected on a receiving antenna.

How does the receiver respond to reflections from objects which are colder than the receiver? What was the emissivity of the distant body at the microwave frequency you worked with? How much of the received “power” is reflected and how much was re-radiated from the distant body? What about passive microwave measurements from space, such as those “collected” by the MSU/AMSU and other instruments?